Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

dsrdsrdsr

Members
  • Content Count

    3,092
  • Joined

About dsrdsrdsr

  • Rank
    3,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    Lancashire
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    P&O
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call
    Norway

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You might not be legally able to book with a US agent, or if you are, you might not get the legal protection that a US resident does. Take care.
  2. Two main grounds for claiming that dementia etc. are primarily afflictions of the thin. 1 - they affect people who live a long time. Fat people live less long so are less likely to live long enough to get dementia. 2 - take a look round a nursing home. It's full of thin people. People who look after themselves don't need less care. They need the same amount of care, but they need it later. As you have pointed out, we're all going to die; and logically, that means we're all going to die of something; most of us are going to be ill before we die; ill people need treatment. This study appears to be imagining that fat people by and large get ill and need expensive treatment while thin people live long productive lives before suddenly dying with no need for medical care at all. It isn't like that. You also have fat people who die suddenly with no medical treatment and thin people who are under permanent medical care for many years before they die. OK, fat people die of diabetes and heart disease wheras thin people, by and large, don't. All it means is that thin people die of something else, and that something else will need expensive treatment too. (And an expensive pension.) Plenty of reasons for wanting people to eat and to be healthy. Cost isn't one of them. and to answer your first point, I am considering public health - that's the point. No need to consider finances because finances aren't (on a national basis) an issue.
  3. Yes, well when the figures look stupid, it's probably because they are stupid. $1.24 trillion in lost productivity? That's about £8,000 per US worker, or about 20% of the average person's wage, lost just because of people being too fat. Do they really think that fat people, on average, lose 40% of their working life to illness? That figure is nonsense. And of course they haven't taken pensions into account. Dementia and other similar conditions are very much disproportionately suffered by the thin. Mainly because the fatter people have died of something else first. We all die in the end; the ones that look after themselves and keep healthy will still die, and almost certainly will die of something that needs expensive medical treatment first, and will draw many years' pension before they get there. There are plenty of reasons to discourage fatness. Cost isn't one of them.
  4. Mum's older, so she wins. However ... Queen Elizabeth II has an official birthday as well as a personal birthday. Treat your mother like a Queen and go on an Alaska cruise at the best time of year on her "official 60th birthday", perhaps on the Queen's UK official birthday of 12th June 2021; or on the Queen's Canadian official birthday on 24th May 2021. Or any other convenient date.
  5. You are finding malice when it isn't there. I will try and explain "they were dying anyway" to remove your misapprehension. At present, three quarters of the people who die in the UK with covid (and it isn't a big number anyway, it is significantly less than the number dying with flu and/or pneumonia) are dying at home. Not in a hospital. This is not because coronavirus comes on suddenly and there is no time to get to hospital; it is not because they have given up on otherwise healthy people and sent them home - they continue treatment in hospital until the last gasp. These people are dying at home because their life is coming to an end anyway, for whatever reason, and they, their families, and the medical professionals have between them reached the verdict that further treatment will do no good. Usually it is because their heart won't stand it, because their life is not worth bringing them back for, or because they have another disease far advanced. Example - I know a man whose father died of coronavirus (or maybe not, but that's another story). He had a severe stroke 10 years ago and had been bedridden in a nursing home ever since. A few months ago he had another severe stroke which cost him the last of his mobility and most if not all of his mental capacity. He then died - of coronavirus. And of course it is possibly correct that if he hadn't caught coronavirus he would have kept breathing for longer - but he was dying. It was time. Another example - the BBC made a story of the first under-40 in the UK to die of (they should have said with) coronavirus. Just under 40 years old. The point of their story was that it wasn't a disease only of later years; young people could get it too. As more or less a footnote, they did say that the person had motor neurone disease and had been given 2 years to live as from summer 2018. Yes, that person was killed by coronavirus, not by motor neurone disease, technically speaking; but that is an example of a person who was dying anyway. Flu and pneumonia is on 0 he death certificate of over 110,000 people each year in the UK. And yet the number generally reported as being killed by flu and pneumonia is much less - about a third, typically, of that number; sometimes less. The reason being that the remainder were dying anyway, mostly of old age coupled with general ill health. The point being, as you already pointed out, we all have to die, and there comes a time when remaining life is short and the next thing to come along is going to kill you. That's what happened to my grandmother. She wasn't, technically, killed by the series of strokes; she was killed by pneumonia after the last stroke left her bedridden and unconscious. But, in reality as opposed to technicality, her life was ended by the strokes. It's the same with coronavirus. Even during the height of the pandemic, many of the deaths were of people who would have died of something else in the relatively near future. And now, even more so; hardly anyone healthy is contracting coronavirus and dying; even the sick are recovering far better than they were (a man with a recent heart and lung transplant and immuno-suppressive problems recovered recently) and nearly all the deaths are of people who were on their way out anyway. That's what I meant. Nothing to do with culling.
  6. I'm more optimistic than most. I reckon that coronavirus has already ceased to be a major problem in the UK (it's killing fewer than flu and pneumonia now, and has been for the last couple of months; the worst affected borough in England lost 1 person in 100,000 in July, and three quarters of boroughs lost no-one.) My belief, or at least hope, is that the virus has run its course in the UK and by May or so next year, this will have been noticed and all restrictions lifted. In the UK, now, it's killing only those who were dying anyway. Either it has become less potent or it has already attacked many of those who were vulnerable and many more of us already (for whatever reason) had immunity, or at least had sufficient defences as to be practically immune.
  7. Amy Johnson may have been used because C&MV sailed to Australia and Amy Johnson was the first to fly solo to Australia.
  8. Good points. I hadn't thought of nighttime emergencies.
  9. I can't imagine an emergency that would stop you getting to your muster station but allow you to get to your cabin. They have to have a full supply within reach of the lifeboats, I think, even if they also have a full supply in the cabins.
  10. The reports of spikes are badly misreported. For one thing, they never mention that the number of increased cases found corresponds quite closely with the number of tests taken. double the tests, double the positives. Hardly a surprise. For another, they don't mention the good news. Deaths are dropping by about 20% per week and have been doing so since May. Regardless of the supposed number of cases, the number of people who died with coronavirus in the UK in the week to 7th August was 109. In a population of 66 million, it's not a big number. And these of course includes people who were dying anyway of something else. The last record I can find from the NHS is on 8th August, and at that date there were 55 people in England on mechanical ventilators. 1 per million. There were 599 people in hospital with covid. 1 per 100,000. These are not big numbers - the number of deaths from flu and pneumonia has for 7 consecutive weeks exceeded the number from coronavirus. By a factor of about 3, in fact. The point being, regardless of this supposed spike, the statistical evidence at present suggests that the disease has for the time being run its course and is not currently any more dangerous than other common viruses in the UK.
  11. I think the simple answer is - they won't. Fortunately there are very few cruise ship evacuations, and even more fortunately those that have happened tended to be slow-developing and not in really rough seas. But if a ship is sinking rapidly and the seas are rough, then older folk will die - it's one of the risks of enjoying your last years rather than sitting in a nursing home just breathing for as long as possible! It's a flippant sort of answer, but it's accurate. The risks of doing anything get greater as we get older.
  12. Some of us aren't bothered about changing it. I'd prefer not to get coronavirus, of course, but assuming we eventually get a vaccine, then nothing will have changed. I will continue travelling by ship with hundreds of other passengers, I will continue sharing germs, and my body will continue fighting them off (something it is very good at). As you say, very big changes would be needed to stop sharing germs. (Stopping at home, primarily.) The big changes aren't worth it.
  13. You are completely missing the point. Your hotel is open as usual in July. This is subject to change. What could the email have said? "There is a virus called coronavirus about in the world and it is causing disruption, and we don't know what will happen in July.". Would that have been useful? Most of their customers would already know that.
  14. Especially under 10s. It's probably coincidence that the California politician was did no harm because it is apparently very hard for children to transmit this virus. A study in Iceland, where contact tracing is very thorough, found not a single case of anyone under 18 transmitting the virus to people they lived with. As for "when will it be safe", if they are working on the basis that "safe" means there is no chance of contracting coronavirus, then the answer is never. They need to redefine "safe". Cruises are a well known danger-holiday, because of the numbers of cruisers who die. mostly because a lot of people choose to go and live their last few years, even though it carries a more immediate risk than hiding in the basement and pretending the world isn't there. We all make our own risk assessments, and the nearer you are to death or incapacity, the less (for many people) there is to lose.
×
×
  • Create New...