Fully vaccinated but test positive before boarding

[JL87]

9 minutes ago, nocl said:

Keep in mind that this was a study in Singapore who runs a very proactive contact tracing and testing programs.  The results in the study included both asymptomatic as well as symptomatic vaccinated individuals as well as unvaccinated.  The statistics were looked at by group.  Viral loading with Delta was considerably higher in both symptomatic and asymptomatic groups at similar level as unvaccinated.  Difference was viral load levels dropped off quicker for the infected vaccinated meaning shorter period of being infectious.

Yes, I should have been more specific as I was referencing the CDC study quoted before yours. I haven't seen the data from the Singapore study. I tried to PM you but see that I can't. I do have some thoughts on this but I don't think that CC really wants us discussing these issues much. It's nice to know though that viral loads in vaccinated people drop off more quickly. Exactly what a vaccine should accomplish.

[Sascol]

7 hours ago, isdoo said:

Sorry, but this is a crazy question. 

 

Agreed.  With an entire industry reliant on doing everything possible to keep covid in check to continue to operate, the OP wants to know if they’d be allowed on a ship with a positive test result?  The thought of doing ANYTHING with a positive diagnosis other than going straight to quarantine is just beyond comprehension at this point. Ugh. 

Edited August 8, 2021 by Sascol

[nocl]

4 minutes ago, Dwight1 said:

Ok everyone! I just read on CNN a medical article that clearly stated that the vaccines were NOT developed to prevent all infections but to ensure those vaccinated do not develop any serious symptoms and do not be alarmed if vaccinated and you do get infected, the vaccines are still working as intended. It would appear all this testing and approach of zero cases on board is futile and not the objective of the vaccines. Basically if everyone on board is vaccinated the extremely few that develop serious symptoms are the only ones who need attention. Everyone is treating all cases as extremely dire. From this article we will never get to zero cases, just extremely few serious illness from the infection.

The number of cases is dire.  The number of cases  drives the potential for infection, the more of which occurs, the more break through cases, the more (even at low odds) serious and fatal cases develop.

 

The more cases the more chance for even worse mutations, especially with more cases occurring in vaccinated individuals where the more vaccine resistant a strain is the more likely it is to thrive.

 

Consider fighting the pandemic to be like a hockey game where the vaccine is the goalie.  A good one stops most shots, but some get through.  Put even a good goalie on a team with poor defense and even they will get scored upon a lot.  Consider the other preventive measures to be like the rest of the team.  Their job is to make sure that the other team gets very few opportunities to take good shots.

 

The most important single metric in fighting the pandemic is the incidence rate.  If that is high all kinds of issues develop, get it low and most issues go away.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, JL87 said:

Yes, I should have been more specific as I was referencing the CDC study quoted before yours. I haven't seen the data from the Singapore study. I tried to PM you but see that I can't. I do have some thoughts on this but I don't think that CC really wants us discussing these issues much. It's nice to know though that viral loads in vaccinated people drop off more quickly. Exactly what a vaccine should accomplish.

It would be nice if they allowed some kind of private messaging.

[nocl]

1 hour ago, Dwight1 said:

The number of cases is dire per the constant drum of the media. The real parameter is deaths and hospitalizations as a % of cases.

Largely because most health professional know the number of cases is the important driving factor. Case rates create opportunity for the virus to reach those that get serious illness.  As well as that more cases the more opportunities for variants to form, just as Delta is worse than the original.  Only take one fully vaccine resistant variant to put us back to the pre-vaccine days.

 

Or to put it another way if your view is correct that it is driven by the media, then why are almost all countries, with all different media, taking incidence rates seriously..

Edited August 8, 2021 by nocl

[canderson]

Unfortunately, the number of cases is also driven by the number of tests given.  "Cases" really doesn't mean much without a LOT of additional data to go along with it.  So many tests are being conducted now that major retail testing sites like Walgreens are out of test kits in our region, and have heard it's like that elsewhere as well.  Many other retail outlets (and some clinics and hospitals) are now limited to whichever test for which reagents are on hand at their labs.

 

Positivity rate is a better guide.  Hospitalizations are an even better guide, since that's where the rubber meets the road.  Cases you can find anywhere just by testing.  Bed count problems have become localized to various parts of the country.

 

Here, our positivity rate remains lower even with a high case count.  Hospitalizations are way down.  Deaths nearly nonexistent.  The important metrics are being met.

[keesar]

43 minutes ago, canderson said:

Unfortunately, the number of cases is also driven by the number of tests given.  "Cases" really doesn't mean much without a LOT of additional data to go along with it.  So many tests are being conducted now that major retail testing sites like Walgreens are out of test kits in our region, and have heard it's like that elsewhere as well.  Many other retail outlets (and some clinics and hospitals) are now limited to whichever test for which reagents are on hand at their labs.

 

Positivity rate is a better guide.  Hospitalizations are an even better guide, since that's where the rubber meets the road.  Cases you can find anywhere just by testing.  Bed count problems have become localized to various parts of the country.

 

Here, our positivity rate remains lower even with a high case count.  Hospitalizations are way down.  Deaths nearly nonexistent.  The important metrics are being met.

 

Take a look at the latest data from Florida.  Record number of  daily cases and record number of hospitalizations.  

[canderson]

9 minutes ago, keesar said:

 

Take a look at the latest data from Florida.  Record number of  daily cases and record number of hospitalizations.  

Have done so.  I do try to stay 'up to date'.

Note in my post the phrase "...localized to various parts of the country."

It's not been a nationwide phenomenon so far.  Can't blame it on mask/no-mask mandates.  Here in Boulder County, CO, we've been maskless for some time now, and this is about as left leaning a county as you'll find this side of the Rockies.  Zero deaths in June.  One each from long-term care and non-long-term care in July (they are tracked separately).  Looks nothing like it did a year ago, and we're very glad for that.

[TrulyBlonde]

16 minutes ago, canderson said:

Have done so.  I do try to stay 'up to date'.

Note in my post the phrase "...localized to various parts of the country."

It's not been a nationwide phenomenon so far.  Can't blame it on mask/no-mask mandates.  Here in Boulder County, CO, we've been maskless for some time now, and this is about as left leaning a county as you'll find this side of the Rockies.  Zero deaths in June.  One each from long-term care and non-long-term care in July (they are tracked separately).  Looks nothing like it did a year ago, and we're very glad for that.

How is the air you are breathing right now? Up here in ski country it is classified as unhealthy. I assume that is your main issue right now, as is ours. CA fires creating havoc 😞

[canderson]

Just now, TrulyBlonde said:

How is the air you are breathing right now? Up here in ski country it is classified as unhealthy. I assume that is your main issue right now, as is ours. CA fires creating havoc 😞

It's absolutely awful.  It doesn't bother my breathing, but we are in the process of building a 26" telescope, and the 'seeing' here due to the high level smoke is really crappy right now for testing purposes.  Sorry you're getting it up higher - probably worse than we are down in the foothills and below.

[nocl]

2 hours ago, canderson said:

Unfortunately, the number of cases is also driven by the number of tests given.  "Cases" really doesn't mean much without a LOT of additional data to go along with it.  So many tests are being conducted now that major retail testing sites like Walgreens are out of test kits in our region, and have heard it's like that elsewhere as well.  Many other retail outlets (and some clinics and hospitals) are now limited to whichever test for which reagents are on hand at their labs.

 

Positivity rate is a better guide.  Hospitalizations are an even better guide, since that's where the rubber meets the road.  Cases you can find anywhere just by testing.  Bed count problems have become localized to various parts of the country.

 

Here, our positivity rate remains lower even with a high case count.  Hospitalizations are way down.  Deaths nearly nonexistent.  The important metrics are being met.

There is several data points that are used to estimate the incidence rate some of those are positive tests, test positivity rate, tests as a percentage of population, then as lagging indicators the number of hospitalizations and number of deaths.

 

All of them contribute to the calculation.  All of them are influenced by other factors for example the test positivity is influenced by why are the tests taken?  As a result of symptoms, for travel, due to contact tracing, required as part of job.  The influence of the positivity rate can be expected to change significantly depending upon the reason the tests taken.

 

The incidence rate is not just the number of positive tests.  It is the number of infections in the population during at a specific time and by its nature must be an estimated number using some of the factors I mentioned above as well as other considerations.

Edited August 9, 2021 by nocl

[canderson]

Unfortunately, intent in testing isn't a statistic being widely gathered.  That's why I said that positivity rate is only a 'better' guide, not a great one, vs. case count.  There are plenty of variables in the correct understanding of 'cases', and I reiterate that testing count is the primary driver, and little information exists to help interpret it properly, even regionally, much less on a nationwide scale.

 

Increase/decrease in hospitalizations for a given geographic area, down to the county level, is the best indicator as to the severity of the problem for that area.  That excludes the 'why' of testing and the guesswork necessary to interpret it, and indicates whether or not whatever infections do occur are driving the problem in a better or worse direction than before.

 

 

[nocl]

1 hour ago, canderson said:

Unfortunately, intent in testing isn't a statistic being widely gathered.  That's why I said that positivity rate is only a 'better' guide, not a great one, vs. case count.  There are plenty of variables in the correct understanding of 'cases', and I reiterate that testing count is the primary driver, and little information exists to help interpret it properly, even regionally, much less on a nationwide scale.

 

Increase/decrease in hospitalizations for a given geographic area, down to the county level, is the best indicator as to the severity of the problem for that area.  That excludes the 'why' of testing and the guesswork necessary to interpret it, and indicates whether or not whatever infections do occur are driving the problem in a better or worse direction than before.

 

 

While intent is not those people that actually do studies and calculations dealing with this do take a look at where the tests are done and take that into account. 

For example there is certainly information available on the number of tests submitted to the state of Hawaii for travel to that state. 

There are also several test sites that are related primarily to travel such as those at various international air ports.

 

You also have those that are done as part of clearance for medical procedures.

 

There are many different ways to slice and dice the data and estimate the actual incidence rate in various communities. By looking at various sites and then looking at differences.

 

You also have on going clinical trials itself.  Which depending upon the size and type study can also provide valuable information as a comparison to the general population.

 

Usually the most accurate calculations are those that are retrospective look backs.  But even in the short term one can look at relative change in data against the population, and adjusting for known impacts.

 

Here is a paper that looked at a number of different methods related to the incidence rate of COVID in the early days

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7310656/

Edited August 9, 2021 by nocl

[Bo1953]

23 hours ago, mozartwon said:

I’m not trying to appear insensitive to the other passengers onboard,  I just what to be prepared for all contingencies.  

 

Thus you test before departure to present at embarkation.

 

As such, if the test results in a positive, then do not board your flight and contact X immediately as to the results.

 

In health and bon voyage

[TeeRick]

Maybe best to get back to the OP's question on what happens if you test positive on embarkation.  And what might happen.  All this other "scientific" stuff although highly interesting to some of us will surely result in the Red Banner.🙂