No Sail Order extended - 100 days

[Roger88]

I feel like they will keep extending it every month until next year or even until next summer. I dont see a reason behind it to start cruisng again. I mean we, as passangers, are ready in majority of numbers but these companies are still afraid they can lose control if a break out happans again 

[phoenix_dream]

On 5/29/2020 at 11:47 AM, pumpkin 11 said:

The virus is real, the statistics are not. 

Yes, the statistics are not 100% accurate - everyone is not reporting correctly and there is not enough testing going on still.  But we have enough info on this virus to know that it is in fact deadly for many, and very difficult for many who get sick but survive.  I know enough people in the medical field who work on Covid-19 wards to know I would much rather take a risk with a new vaccine than a risk getting the virus.  

[phoenix_dream]

On 5/29/2020 at 2:22 PM, pumpkin 11 said:

Well you can call it whatever you want. But it didn't come true. I usually don't care but this is public policy that put 40 million americans out of work and countless damages we have done to our schools hospitals and other institutions 

There is no way you or anyone else can ever know whether it would have "come true" without the restrictions that were put in place.  You might be right.  You might be wrong.  We do know that in countries where less restrictive measures (or no measures) were put in place the rates of infection and death are very high and climbing, and there is no end in sight as far as we know. 

 

I think if you look at the statistics of the last big pandemic in the US (by my definition the 1918 flu) you can see how large a percentage of the population was sickened.  Death numbers are hard to compare as we have so much more in the way of medical tools these days, but illness numbers are pretty clear.   And don't think there were not some measures of control put in place even then - many areas closed certain businesses and events, and still the numbers were astronomical.  We have no way of legitimately knowing for sure if that would have happened had we not put restrictions in place.  I don't know about you, but I would personally prefer a government that erred on the side of caution and listened to the medical experts rather than throwing caution to the wind, despite the big hit to the economy.  (and this is not meant to get into a back and forth of whether we did enough, soon enough, etc.. - this is just a general statement).

[pumpkin 11]

57 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

Yes, the statistics are not 100% accurate - everyone is not reporting correctly and there is not enough testing going on still.  But we have enough info on this virus to know that it is in fact deadly for many, and very difficult for many who get sick but survive.  I know enough people in the medical field who work on Covid-19 wards to know I would much rather take a risk with a new vaccine than a risk getting the virus.  

Define "many"? LOL 

[phoenix_dream]

On 5/29/2020 at 2:08 PM, pumpkin 11 said:

Why stop at April 11th? Everyone knows Covid deaths are being reported at a far higher number than there are actual Covid deaths. Dr. Burkes said it was about 25% over representation and that's what they're telling us. Probably closer to 40% or 50%. 

 

Italy said 99% of the people who died had other comorbidities. The virus is real, the statistics and the models never we're.

Define how you came up with "closer to 40% or 50%".  It's interesting you know so much.  Perhaps you should be the one making the restriction rulings rather than the top scientific minds in the world.

[UnorigionalName]

26 minutes ago, pumpkin 11 said:

Define "many"? LOL 

 

[pumpkin 11]

5 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

Define how you came up with "closer to 40% or 50%".  It's interesting you know so much.  Perhaps you should be the one making the restriction rulings rather than the top scientific minds in the world.

And I assume you're a doctor too? Everybody knows the virus was here in the fall.

Edited June 8, 2020 by pumpkin 11

[DaveSJ711]

1 hour ago, pumpkin 11 said:

Define "many"? LOL 

 

OMG, another COVID denier.  I didn't know those folks were still around.

 

Here's a definition of "many" -- 110,000+ deaths from COVID and counting, just in the U.S.  I for one am not laughing at that number.

[pumpkin 11]

Just now, DaveSJ711 said:

 

OMG, another COVID denier.  I didn't know those folks were still around.

 

Here's a definition of "many" -- 110,000+ deaths from COVID and counting, just in the U.S.  I for one am not laughing at that number.

You're putting words in my mouth, in fact I said the virus was "real". 

[DaveSJ711]

Just now, pumpkin 11 said:

You're putting words in my mouth, in fact I said the virus was "real". 

 

Still laughing?

[pumpkin 11]

Just now, DaveSJ711 said:

 

Still laughing?

You think you're so righteous. Fine I don't care what you think, I can't control your opinions nor do I want to.

 

For the rest of the folks here not making a childish scene:

 

https://www.axios.com/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients-08d84e31-1846-44d8-8fe1-2343ff850764.html

 

The 85% of people who contract covid 19 and are asymptomatic you cannot spread the virus, you can take off that mask now, (unless you have covid symptoms).

[Fouremco]

4 minutes ago, pumpkin 11 said:

You think you're so righteous. Fine I don't care what you think, I can't control your opinions nor do I want to.

 

For the rest of the folks here not making a childish scene:

 

https://www.axios.com/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients-08d84e31-1846-44d8-8fe1-2343ff850764.html

 

The 85% of people who contract covid 19 and are asymptomatic you cannot spread the virus, you can take off that mask now, (unless you have covid symptoms).

Did you read the entire article? While it says that spread by asymptomatics is not as severe as originally thought, it goes on to say "Don't treat these statements as a permission to treat a lack of symptoms as a 'get out of social distancing' free card" and provides the following additional information:

 

• Infected people can be contagious well before experiencing symptoms.
• "Some modeling studies suggest 40-60% of spread is from people when they didn’t have symptoms," tweeted Ashish Jha, incoming dean at the Brown School of Public Health.
• Singapore's coronavirus task force also said Monday that it believes half of the country's new COVID-19 cases are asymptomatic based on testing data, Reuters reports.

BTW, I don't know where you acquired the information for your final paragraph, but certainly not from the article as your post would seem to intimate.

[pumpkin 11]

6 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Did you read the entire article? While it says that spread by asymptomatics is not as severe as originally thought, it goes on to say "Don't treat these statements as a permission to treat a lack of symptoms as a 'get out of social distancing' free card" and provides the following additional information:

 

• Infected people can be contagious well before experiencing symptoms.
• "Some modeling studies suggest 40-60% of spread is from people when they didn’t have symptoms," tweeted Ashish Jha, incoming dean at the Brown School of Public Health.
• Singapore's coronavirus task force also said Monday that it believes half of the country's new COVID-19 cases are asymptomatic based on testing data, Reuters reports.

BTW, I don't know where you acquired the information for your final paragraph, but certainly not from the article as your post would seem to intimate.

The lady talking said it is extremely rare, I literally listened to her talk just now. She says it is very rare that asymptomatic cases will be able to spread it.

 

Now I'm not saying that gives cruising a pass, but it certainly is interesting that fauci has gotten just about everything wrong. And you see the dow rise and rise...

 

The phrase "socially distance" is not in any epidemiological textbooks. It is not science, and has no evidence to back it up. It is a made up phrase that most doctors have never heard of prior to this pandemic.  

Edited June 8, 2020 by pumpkin 11

[Fouremco]

6 minutes ago, pumpkin 11 said:

fauci has gotten just about everything wrong.

To the contrary, based on the available information at any given point in time, he's been extremely accurate.

[markeb]

12 minutes ago, pumpkin 11 said:

You think you're so righteous. Fine I don't care what you think, I can't control your opinions nor do I want to.

 

For the rest of the folks here not making a childish scene:

 

https://www.axios.com/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients-08d84e31-1846-44d8-8fe1-2343ff850764.html

 

The 85% of people who contract covid 19 and are asymptomatic you cannot spread the virus, you can take off that mask now, (unless you have covid symptoms).

 

Interesting. I hadn't seen the WHO advice document. It was released last Friday.

 

Unfortunately, the WHO once again uses different definitions in the same discussion, and in this case words matter.

 

If what they're saying (and I think this is what they mean) is that people who are exposed and clear the virus and never develop symptoms rarely transmit the virus, that's great news. But the summary statement at the end says

 

"Comprehensive studies on transmission from asymptomatic individuals are difficult to conduct, but the available evidence from contact tracing reported by Member States suggests that asymptomatically-infected individuals are much less likely to transmit the virus than those who develop symptoms."

 

Which once again confuses pre-symptomatic transmission (which the cited WHO document supports) with transmission by people who clear the virus and remain asymptomatic. This is the same terminology problem that's way too late to change of classifying everyone who tests positive on PCR as a case, not just those who become ill. And PCR gives no indication of viability of the virus. The unanswered question then becomes is a PCR positive individual who never develops symptoms capable of transmission at some point in the disease? WHO is saying the evidence is that's rare to extremely rare (0-14% depending on the study).

 

You have to go to the source document cited in the Axios article to get some clarity on terminology, and some interesting results on viral viability I haven't seen before. Unfortunately, the pull quote from the Axios article is a direct quote from the complete document, and probably suffers from being written in French by a native Flemish speaker then translated into English and the nuance of "those who develop symptoms" possibly meaning either presymptomatic at the time of transmission and became symptomatic, or symptomatic at the time of transmission only. They also seem to be making a distinction between those who never have any illness, and people who develop unrecognized or unrecognizable symptoms of COVID19. I'm not sure that has any practical significance now, maybe a research question at some point. 

 

The paper makes a pretty good argument that totally asymptomatic individuals (which is probably nobody living anywhere with pollen in the air in North America) don't need a mask. But that's not what's being said right now by the CDC in the US. And they're somewhat unlikely to quote a WHO study as justification to put out new guidance.

 

The closing line in the article still applies:

 

The bottom line: These statements are a reminder of just how little we understand about this virus.

[markeb]

1 hour ago, pumpkin 11 said:

The phrase "socially distance" is not in any epidemiological textbooks. It is not science, and has no evidence to back it up. It is a made up phrase that most doctors have never heard of prior to this pandemic.

 

The term has been around for a very long time. It's just mostly been used in things like military doctrine. It's been popular terminology in NATO, for instance, for years. I remember it coming into common use in that environment in the late 90's to early 2000's, probably by the UK, along with some other terminology viewed as more operational than isolation and quarantine, for instance. It's not been anywhere near as common in civilian literature. I will confess to being more than a little surprised when it started being used in the US civilian public health system back in February and March; I don't recall exactly when it started. It's certainly a concept I would expect Dr. (Colonel, US Army (Retired)) Birx to be familiar with. But I agree that most physicians would never have heard the term. They'd probably quickly understand the concept of keeping out of droplet range, but I'd be surprised if many of them would call it social distancing.

 

Actually, just did a little more looking at the term was defined by the CDC in 2007 during preparation for pandemic influenza. The link I found goes directly to the pdf titled "Ethical guidelines in Pandemic Influenza – Recommendations of the Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention". So it's been in that environment for over a decade.

Edited June 8, 2020 by markeb
Completeness

[UnorigionalName]

1 hour ago, pumpkin 11 said:

You think you're so righteous. Fine I don't care what you think, I can't control your opinions nor do I want to.

 

For the rest of the folks here not making a childish scene:

 

https://www.axios.com/who-coronavirus-asymptomatic-patients-08d84e31-1846-44d8-8fe1-2343ff850764.html

 

The 85% of people who contract covid 19 and are asymptomatic you cannot spread the virus, you can take off that mask now, (unless you have covid symptoms).

 

Can you give a source for the 85% number?  The most generous estimates have been ~50% with most studies around the 30-40% range as far as I know. 

 

Also, those that eventually are symptomatic may be infectious ~2 days before symptom onset.  It's hard to separate exactly when transmission occurs, but modeling suggests that you can be infectious shortly before you become symptomatic.  So please put your mask back on.

Edited June 8, 2020 by UnorigionalName

[DaveSJ711]

48 minutes ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

Can you give a source for the 85% number?  The most generous estimates have been ~50% with most studies around the 30-40% range as far as I know. 

 

This is probably the source.  I would take the figure with a large grain of salt, for four reasons.  First, the percentage comes from old data (January 2020).  Second, the data come from China -- not the most reliable source IMO.  Third, the data were generated before the Chinese government instituted containment and mitigation measures (which helped to document cases).  Fourth, the percentage represents the proportion of people whose cases went unnoticed -- not simply people who were asymptomatic.  (The 85% figure includes those with mild symptoms and those who never sought care.)

 

Yes, our Charlotte friend and others should put their masks back on.

 

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85448

Edited June 8, 2020 by DaveSJ711

[ecslady]

3 hours ago, C-Dragons said:

Another piece of the puzzle regarding Covid-19

 

23andMe provides more evidence that blood type plays role in COVID-19 virus

Studying genetics of people who are susceptible to COVID-19 help identify people at risk

 

 

Thanks for posting this.  I was wondering if someone else was going to do a study on Blood Type, after the early on Chinese study.

[C-Dragons]

1 hour ago, ecslady said:

 

Thanks for posting this.  I was wondering if someone else was going to do a study on Blood Type, after the early on Chinese study.

You're welcome. 😊

[markeb]

3 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

Can you give a source for the 85% number?  The most generous estimates have been ~50% with most studies around the 30-40% range as far as I know. 

 

Also, those that eventually are symptomatic may be infectious ~2 days before symptom onset.  It's hard to separate exactly when transmission occurs, but modeling suggests that you can be infectious shortly before you become symptomatic.  So please put your mask back on.

 

If you look at the WHO document cited in the Axios article they quoted, the WHO actually makes the argument that there are very few truly asymptomatic people. Most have unrecognized symptoms of COVID19. For instance, a cough, with at most a low grade fever. They're "symptomatic", but they never recognize the symptoms. They admit there's a real chance for "recall bias", basically if you ask somebody directly if they had muscle aches in the last month, they're going to think back really hard, and may "recall" something that may or may not have been there. But if that proves ultimately true, the truly asymptomatic population would be a lot smaller, and a lot of people simply don't equate their symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

 

I'm old enough to remember when the thought process was that HIV infection was asymptomatic until the immunosuppression appeared months to years after infection. In reality, HIV causes a fairly significant viral syndrome shortly after infection that usually wasn't recognized. Then the virus sequesters and does its long term damage. But the vast majority apparently have a significant acute illness.

[phoenix_dream]

7 hours ago, pumpkin 11 said:

And I assume you're a doctor too? Everybody knows the virus was here in the fall.

No, I am not a doctor. That is why I am taking my information from the top medical experts and disease specialists, not posters on Cruise Critic who think they know more than the experts do.   It is true that information changes as more facts become known.  But I don’t have a crystal ball, nor do I have one that works in reverse to tell me what might have been had not x,y, and z happened.  

[UnorigionalName]

9 hours ago, pumpkin 11 said:

And I assume you're a doctor too? Everybody knows the virus was here in the fall.

 

who is everybody?  Got any sources for that?  Don't think there is any evidence of cases in stateside till january, and no real community spread until mid february.  Even on extensive testing of nasal swabs collected for flu monitoring. 

[Germancruiser]

Not even the stated experts we hear every day are of the same opinion. All those virolgist seem a bit worn out after all the answers the have ben confronted with.

When I see  our chief expert - or many say- our national virologist on TV I change channels at once.

The American counterpart ich Fauci- i believe a very special friend of DT. LOL!

THAT VIRUS IS NOT CALLED THE " NEW" VIRUS FOR NOTHING.

So even the experts learn every week more about this evil little bugger!

What a wonderful surprise to meet so many new experts around here!

[pumpkin 11]

8 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

 

who is everybody?  Got any sources for that?  Don't think there is any evidence of cases in stateside till january, and no real community spread until mid february.  Even on extensive testing of nasal swabs collected for flu monitoring. 

Because they didn't know it existed, how do you test for that?