Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About mayleeman

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
    Columbia, SC
  • Interests
    DIY home renov, gardening & piano (wife), reading, photoshop, swimming, Jayhawks
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If I were to have a bad reaction to a vaccine, I would suspect that might be an indication that my reaction to getting an actual infection could be very severe. So I would certainly get the second one! But I am likely a much stronger believer in vaccines than most. Anyone who is pretty reluctant in the first place might not go back, unfortunately.
  2. Is there any reason production could not be increased substantially by licensing to other drug companies? If one vaccine is significantly more effective that seems the solution.
  3. Masks aren't perfect and have some drawbacks. From these facts, the posters here seem to have diverged into two lines of thinking: 1) wear a mask anyway because anything that helps is worth doing, or 2) don't wear a mask and make fun of the people who do. Okay, calling the second one "thinking" may be a bit generous..... I just don't get the idea of not trying to do something the facing the greatest infectious threat in 100 years. Let's say masks only are 60% effective, or even 30%. When there is no alternative available, isn't that worth trying?
  4. I think the answer was tongue in cheek. It happens on the internet any time someone asks if they are losing their mind. Always at least one yes, no matter the topic!
  5. The current surge in cases is attributable to a large degree to simple human impatience. People are tired of masks and restrictions, so they decide to stop doing those things or to disregard the risks as they experience the costs and consequences and inconveniences. An analogy would be to watch people waiting to cross a busy street when a crossing light is either not working or just set to a long delay. Some people will wait patiently until the "Walk" signal occurs, no matter how long, or if it is broken only cross when there are no cars coming. But some others who get tired of w
  6. Gosh, and those idiots who worked in coal mines or built factories using asbestos insulation they weren't told was dangerous, or the suckers who went to Vietnam and got exposed to Agent Orange. Or people fighting respiratory infections in Houston or Katrina from mold. None of those people are fit, so they should just suck it up when they have severe or fatal responses to Covid. Who are these irresponsible people, anyway? Rallying cry: Let the herd barhop, darn it! Stragglers, fall out like you deserve! Sheesh....
  7. Basically, the GBD, as urged here by the OP and others, does depend on a belief in eugenics: if Covid is not a major threat to fit people with no underlying health conditions, then it is an acceptable risk to allow it to run through the population until herd immunity is reached. After all, unfit people and unhealthy people must accept their "personal responsibility" for any heightened risks they face from Covid. "Innocent fit people should not be punished due to governments trying to protect" the foolishly vulnerable. This can be simplified to: some people just aren't w
  8. Seems to me if all the security, limited access, protocols and constant testing in the White House couldn't protect the President and FLady, the prospects for a highly crowded environment like a cruise ship to successfully avoid a breakout seem quite remote.
  9. It is hard to address, though, isn't it? Retesting seems the most responsible avenue. No test is 100% accurate, but there are also people who wouldn't believe the reported results even if a test was confirmed by labs to be 100%. Look at how many people think the earth is flat. Or that wearing a mask is part of a plot. Or that they are able to safely drive after a few.
  10. Favorite place in the world! As peaceful as cruising--for both, once you get away from loud crowds...
  11. Then those of us who like safer travel, and who do not trust travel companies who break their promises to provide safety measures, will do other things. I am not saying they have to please me above all others. If other cruisers go and enjoy the experience despite what I see as an untenably dangerous environment, so be it. I just won't spend my money there. My car is wonderful, and it is time to visit the Snake River among hundreds of other (inland) destinations.
  12. Good point. The early panics about transmission from touching (that led to Clorox wipes and paper towel shortages, among other things) was due to the early reports from hospitals and nursing homes where the virus was being expelled in procedures and resulted in high concentrations on surfaces that were touched repeatedly by the same people. Few people are recommending wiping down grocery bags and food items (but it makes good sense anyway in flu season to wash hands frequently). Caution in general is a good idea!
  13. I guess recognizing facetiousness is a lost art. Did you not realize I was ridiculing the concept of not protecting cruisers? Please read @Fouremco's reply: he gets it....
  14. Okay, I get it--vacationers do not deserve protection because leisure activity is unnecessary. I wonder if the crew is deserving of protection. I mean, their support of their families, their very livelihood...yes? But it is a job catering to that unnecessary leisure enjoyment, so...no? Yikes, how silly! I think if cruises restart, we will be able expect the crew to follow protocols not just for our benefit but for their own. I fully expect a crew member disregarding the rules will be disembarked at the next port. Safety is not optional for a virus that has a disproporti
  15. You might want to check who I was responding to....the person insisting it is .03% rather than 3%, meaning the cases would have to be 100 times what they actually are to arrive at our current 200,000 deaths.
  • Create New...