Jump to content

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Fredric22 said:

As you may notice I said "great results", not "great news."  It is certainly encouraging news from 1 particular drug.  As you may know, there are 30+ other drugs being studied right now and many of them have some very encouraging early results.  This is in addition to drugs that are currently being developed to treat COVID-19 specifically.  Remdesivir may only be used for those who have advanced disease and that is OK.  If we have a way to treat those who are most at risk, then the death rate for COVID-19 comes down significantly and we are able to keep these patients off ventilators and get them out of ICUs and hospitals quicker.  That changes the dynamic of how we look at this disease.  Now, couple that with some drug interventions that work well for early stages of the virus (prevent it from replicating), then you really change how this all plays out.  Social distancing to prevent a non-deadly virus starts to look silly, just as we didn't socially distance in order to prevent influenza.  Do you see how drugs/treatments will make a huge difference here? 

Not even necessarily great results.  This study did not for include any on ventilators.  For comparison there was a study on a drug in China that also did not include patients on Ventilators, but did include similar serious patients (oxygen level at 94% and below) where 80% recovered within 14 days, yet that drug was considered to have failed when the data was analyzed. The trial does have some fairly restrictive criteria.

 

So we will see once the data comes in if 1. it really was successful and 2. If it is worth the risk profile.  Once a drug actually generates results in a well run trial we can actually see what if any prograss is being made.

 

Anti-virals are extremely difficult.  That is why we depend more on vaccines for viruses instead of anit-virals.

Edited by npcl
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, npcl said:

Not even necessarily great results.  This study did not for include any on ventilators.  For comparison there was a study on a drug in China that also did not include patients on Ventilators, but did include similar serious patients (oxygen level at 94% and below) where 80% recovered within 14 days, yet that drug was considered to have failed when the data was analyzed. The trail does have some fairly restrictive criteria.

 

So we will see once the data comes in if 1. it really was successful and 2. If it is worth the risk profile.

By the time a patient is on a ventilator, sadly, the virus has already run its course and the person's own immune system is now fighting against itself.  Antivirals will not help those in this condition, as viral level by that point is low.  Anyway, a positive outlook is good for health, so try and take that approach! 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2020 at 2:26 PM, Btimmer said:

One item mentioned on the Travelling With Bruce YT channel yesterday was a report that Emirates airlines will require a CV-19 test at check-in in Dubai before boarding a flight.  It's supposed to be a 10 minute turnaround.  If this is true, it could become part of the new norm for cruising.

This would be a good beginning, but once you stop at the first port, you could then bring on board Covid19 from mingling and interactions from shore, no?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think many would book and pay for a cruise but risk being turned back at the dock based on a test for CV-19.   I also don't think insurance companies would cover that loss nor cruise companies refund fares based on the result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, colonialinnkeeper said:

This would be a good beginning, but once you stop at the first port, you could then bring on board Covid19 from mingling and interactions from shore, no?

That is true, but it is doubtful that cruise lines will stop at any countries/islands that have significant community spread of COVID-19.  It may be plausible that cruises later this summer or Fall will get some new itineraries and only stop at private island destinations where there is more of a certainty of no COVID-19 spread.  Of course, that will only work for some Caribbean cruises and will not be applicable to any other region.  My guess is Carnival and Royal would rather have 3 or 4 ships sailing to their various private island destinations than no ships sailing at all.  That might be a way for the industry to gently phase back in.  Lastly, there will never be 100% certainty that COVID-19 cases will not get brought on the ship.  Even with a vaccine, it will be impossible to prevent it 100%.  But, the testing should reduce the risk of an outbreak on board by a significant percentage.  And in the event there is an outbreak on board, weekly testing of crew would ensure that it is quickly found, isolated, and traced. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • SPECIAL EVENT: Q&A with Barbara Muckermann, CMO Silversea Cruises
      • ICYM Our Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Explore the Remote World with Hurtigruten!
      • Q&A with the Quark Expeditions Team: New Ship Ultramarine
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...