Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

2wheelin

Members
  • Content Count

    1,358
  • Joined

About 2wheelin

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Interests
    traveling, motorcycling, reading

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Those who “get” (ie claim) that it is a bribe are the ones too cheap to pay up front for an extra request (which as has been explained is not a bribe unless asking for something which should not be granted). It’s as if they need to wait until the end to make sure they didn’t get a poor room steward and an extra tip will have been unearned.
  2. Sorry, I don’t have a link. I searched back through my emails and could not find the notice. It may have been proprietary since it was on work mail too. It is initially a dry spot test to determine reactivity and if positive will want a blood draw serology test to confirm. That is all I know at this point as I am also on furlough and do not have my normal access to publications. You may want to try google and Mayo Clinic. And I was wrong on the numbers. It will be offered to all 65000 employees who want it.
  3. Highly accurate serology tests have been developed at my institution and are being offered to all 30000 employees.
  4. Not yet but last year would you have predicted travel insurance would not include a viral infection?
  5. This is a primary concern, that one would be detained, possibly in a foreign country to complete the waiting period—14 days—for symptoms or adequate testing to prove negative. People who recently participated in protests with 10000 of their closest friends went the following day and were happy to test negative. Total waste of a test and false security. To the person who included DNA testing as a non worry, how will you feel when your insurance company refuses coverage for your half million dollar or more cancer treatment because it was in your DNA?
  6. We probably should arrange for a pandemic every ten years to really cure that “problem”.
  7. Well, we weren’t planning to let anyone out were we?? 🤣😂 I have always said kids don’t eat enough dirt these days. Same thing for all these food allergies because babies aren’t fed certain foods when young.
  8. But now with high volume testing, we have sample sizes of thousands. Testing has been expanded to people with no symptoms and many are positive. What is not know is how infective they are to others.
  9. Or we could put everyone in one of those plastic balls. Would be much safer for everyone. Lol
  10. That’s my point that everyone wearing a mask is silly.
  11. We had increased cases as long as we increased testing but they are leveling out as we reached a plateau of numbers tested. Hospitalizations are down as well as deaths. More testing equals more positives but not necessarily more illness than was there before. The increase in positive tests is primarily due to testing asymptomatic individuals.
  12. This! Then there are those righteous individuals out there wearing improper masks in improper ways so that even what tiny bit of protection they would afford others is lost. But they are wearing a mask to protect us! To be any use at all the CDC says masks need to be multi-layered and tight fitting. Can’t begin to count the people wearing a little single layer stretchy thing, or wearing something below the nose or totally open on the sides or bottom. Who do they think they are fooling? If I wear a mask it is to protect me, which is all our responsibility. Multi layered made from properly tightly woven material with a nose piece and an extra filter.
  13. As testing increases, less positive would be nice but that would show that asymptomatic people really did not test positive, along with a possible real decrease in cases. If asymptomatic and presymptomatic people test positive, then testing more people will necessarily result in increases in positive results. Your last statement is correct which is exactly why we are testing more and why there are more positives. So increased testing will mathematically result in more positive. Absolutely does not automatically equate to more infection.
  14. Same as your anecdotal evidence for one way aisles. YOU thought they were beneficial so encouraged them. I don’t think big gatherings are good but the anecdotal evidence could say otherwise, so encourage them to further reduce infections. Now do you see why it is more important to look at facts? Any upper Midwest and high plains states.
  15. Purely anecdotal. No clear evidence at all. Time of exposure is a key element in transmission and it takes longer to pass someone (or remain behind them to the end of the store) than it does to meet them. Neither scenario is long enough to catch something unless there is active coughing, etc. One store here actually has turn arrows on the end of aisles making it impossible (following the arrows) to double back for something forgotten, or to shop the aisle and then go back for the selection. More time in store=more people exposed to. Our state has reopened bars and restaurants and had many huge protest groups and our infection rates have gone DOWN (while increasing the number or tests dramatically) so anecdotally, this has contributed to decreased illness. All states should rush to hold big gatherings. So you see how drawing conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, or a group of criteria, is—shall we say—stupid.
×
×
  • Create New...