Covid on Alaska cruise

[WonderMan3]

1 hour ago, Roger88 said:

There isnt really any safe forms of travel these days.. and there have never been any safe forms really. I mean no matter where and how you travel you will meet random people who might carry a virus with them, so there is no safe place really. I mean all you can do is to relax and let the things go their way. I mean you might just be lucky or you can simply stay at home and increase your chances of survival. I mean even without Covid there were tons of scary situations 

Apparently you did not read what I wrote. I was speaking of a situation in which a vaccine was available and cruise lines were restricting passengers and crew to only those who had been vaccinated. I was not talking about the situation as it stands right now.

[WonderMan3]

2 hours ago, poffles said:

 

Then it's just to figure out a way to 'teleport' people to the ship ... socially distanced of course 🙂

If you are vaccinated then does it matter how you get to the ship? The only problem I see is if COVID-19 morphs into multiple strains where the vaccine is only effective against one of them.

[npcl]

7 minutes ago, hcat said:

Hope none of the Covid pos cruisers/crew become seriousy ill, and that the quarantine works well to limit spread.

 

Cruising, large gatherings  and  resorts should still "pause" til the numbers of actual cases  is down.  We made it this far....a bit longer will provide much better results in the long run.   

 

Rather than wander afar, we are enjoying our home more than ever indoors and outside.  We are  very fortunate to have power after the hurricane with the awful  name.  .And this week we will get lots of outdoor exercise cleaning up.... luckily no major damage but many large leafy tree limbs and branches all over the place.

Glad to hear that you came through the storm relatively unscathed 

[poffles]

9 minutes ago, WonderMan3 said:

If you are vaccinated then does it matter how you get to the ship? The only problem I see is if COVID-19 morphs into multiple strains where the vaccine is only effective against one of them.

 

Oh I missed that.  True enough that changes everything and hopefully the vaccine is highly effective.

[BEAV]

5 hours ago, PTC DAWG said:

This, I don’t trust the numbers...

 

I don't either. But, personally, the "numbers" don't mean much to me. 

 

My Nephew's 38-yr old wife went to the ER after 5 days of extreme fatigue, back pain, headache, tightness in her chest, difficulty breathing and tested negative for Covid. 3 days later, feeling no better, she went to her Doctor. He diagnosed her as having Covid by description of her symptoms without additional testing. If his diagnosis was correct, her case was never counted. 

 

That was 2 1/2 weeks ago. She's slowly improving. That's what matters most. Not inflated or deflated numbers. 

 

 

 

 

[npcl]

52 minutes ago, WonderMan3 said:

If you are vaccinated then does it matter how you get to the ship? The only problem I see is if COVID-19 morphs into multiple strains where the vaccine is only effective against one of them.

Depends upon how effective the vaccine is against even one strain.  The FDA says that even one 50% effective would be considered a success.

[D C]

3 hours ago, npcl said:

No 40% false negatives does not mean 40% of negative results should really be positive.  

 

What it means is that 40% of the time that a positive person is tested they will generate a negative result (virus not detected).

 

 

 

50% of the cases are asymptomatic.  A new study from Korea today, indicates that asymptomatic patients shed just as much virus as those with symptoms.  As a result tests are needed to try and get those folks to isolate themselves and keep from infecting others.

Can you provide a citation for this definition? I've never seen any such claim/definition in any research. 

 

I seriously doubt the asymptomatic claim but I'll look for the report. 

[D C]

2 hours ago, BEAV said:

 

I don't either. But, personally, the "numbers" don't mean much to me. 

 

My Nephew's 38-yr old wife went to the ER after 5 days of extreme fatigue, back pain, headache, tightness in her chest, difficulty breathing and tested negative for Covid. 3 days later, feeling no better, she went to her Doctor. He diagnosed her as having Covid by description of her symptoms without additional testing. If his diagnosis was correct, her case was never counted. 

 

That was 2 1/2 weeks ago. She's slowly improving. That's what matters most. Not inflated or deflated numbers. 

 

 

 

 

Yet we continue to test people with no symptoms.   Somehow, being really bad at determining who should be tested is a good thing.   i.e. If we test a LOT of people, and only a few have COVID, we wasted a lot of tests and were really bad at using testing as a confirmation of a medical diagnosis. But that gives a low percent of positive tests which some people think is good. Nonsensical. 

[npcl]

14 minutes ago, D C said:

Can you provide a citation for this definition? I've never seen any such claim/definition in any research. 

 

I seriously doubt the asymptomatic claim but I'll look for the report. 

What do you want a citation for the percentage or the definition of a false negative because by definition a false negative is when an infected person takes a test and gets a negative result.  What do you think a false negative is?

 

from NIH

 

False Negative 

 

A test result that incorrectly indicates that the condition being tested for is not present when, in fact, the condition is actually present. For example, a false-negative HIV test indicates that a person does not have HIV when the person actually does have HIV.

Edited August 7, 2020 by npcl

[d9704011]

In Ontario, testing has moved from those with symptoms to an expanded strategy to try to find people who may have CV-19 and/or locations where the virus may be active.  The %age of positive tests has gone way down over the last month or so but expanded testing helps root out outbreaks before they can expand.

 

You should visit an assessment centre if you:

• have COVID-19covid 19 symptoms
• do not have symptoms but are concerned you might have been exposed
• do not have symptoms but think you are at risk (for example, if you are an essential or health care worker)

[npcl]

As far as testing errors.  Note that the best days had a false negative  rate of of 20%, with 100% on day 1 dropping to 67% on day 4. Optimum time to test was day 8 at 20% but get worse after than time.

 

https://www.biotechniques.com/covid-19/false-negatives-how-accurate-are-pcr-tests-for-covid-19/

 

Publishing their results in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers stress the need for caution in interpreting any negative results of RT-PCR diagnostic tests, as many other factors, such as the timing of the test, appear to play a role in the accuracy of the results. The probability of a false negative COVID-19 test decreased from 100% on Day 1 of the infection to 67% on Day 4. This further decreased to 20% on Day 8, 3 days after a patient would first start to experience COVID-19 symptoms.

Day 8 appeared to be the optimal time for testing, as after this the probability of a false negative once again began to increase. A 21% probability on Day 9 increased to 66% if testing occurred on Day 21 of infection.

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2015897

 In days 1 through 7 after onset of illness, 11% of sputum, 27% of nasal, and 40% of throat samples were deemed falsely negative.

 

https://www.itnonline.com/content/covid-19-genetic-pcr-tests-give-false-negative-results-if-used-too-early

 When the average patient began displaying symptoms of the virus, the false-negative rate was 38 percent. 

 

 

Edited August 7, 2020 by npcl

[npcl]

 

22 minutes ago, D C said:

Can you provide a citation for this definition? I've never seen any such claim/definition in any research. 

 

I seriously doubt the asymptomatic claim but I'll look for the report. 

 

For the korea study concerning virus shedding from asymptomatic patients.

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2769235

 

In this cohort study of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection who were isolated in a community treatment center in Cheonan, ROK, the Ct values in asymptomatic patients were similar to those in symptomatic patients. Viral molecular shedding was prolonged. Because transmission by asymptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 may be a key factor in community spread, population-based surveillance and isolation of asymptomatic patients may be required.

[hvbaskey]

16 hours ago, poffles said:

 

Then it's just to figure out a way to 'teleport' people to the ship ... socially distanced of course 🙂

BEAM me up (or over to that ship!) ☺️

 

 

[LEtue]

22 hours ago, PTC DAWG said:

This, I don’t trust the numbers...

We are having issues with reporting here in FL.  Just last week a 6 yr old and an 18 yr old from different families received mail saying that they tested positive and neither had gone for a test. 

I know of 2 cases personally where this has happened in the same family 🤨  So in addition to the testing reliability we have this issue.....  

 

[SeaHunt]

Everyone mentions the older population and cruising, but they need to be sure and test the kiddos under 5 too 🙃

 

The observed differences in median CT values between young children and adults approximate a 10-fold to 100-fold greater amount of SARS-CoV-2 in the upper respiratory tract of young children.

 

<and>

 

Our analyses suggest children younger than 5 years with mild to moderate COVID-19 have high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA in their nasopharynx compared with older children and adults. Our study is limited to detection of viral nucleic acid, rather than infectious virus, although SARS-CoV-2 pediatric studies reported a correlation between higher nucleic acid levels and the ability to culture infectious virus.5 Thus, young children can potentially be important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 spread in the general population, as has been demonstrated with respiratory syncytial virus, where children with high viral loads are more likely to transmit.6

 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2768952

[phoenix_dream]

On 8/6/2020 at 7:55 PM, D C said:

Can you provide a citation for this definition? I've never seen any such claim/definition in any research. 

 

I seriously doubt the asymptomatic claim but I'll look for the report. 

I don't know the actual percentages, but I just read an article yesterday from a reputable source discussing how asymptomatic people are believed to be every bit as contagious as those with symptoms.  Sorry, since it was yesterday and these days I can barely remember five minutes ago I don't have the actual article to present.

[D C]

On 8/7/2020 at 11:21 PM, phoenix_dream said:

I don't know the actual percentages, but I just read an article yesterday from a reputable source discussing how asymptomatic people are believed to be every bit as contagious as those with symptoms.  Sorry, since it was yesterday and these days I can barely remember five minutes ago I don't have the actual article to present.

The key is knowing whether people are actually asymptomatic, or if they received false positives.  The more healthy people we test, the more false positives there will be.   For that matter, even the symptomatic can receive false positive results.  We'll see that a lot come flu season. 

[NantahalaCruiser]

On 8/6/2020 at 9:38 AM, Harrylinden said:

I honestly don't know why the cruise lines don't cancel ALL cruises till the end of the year and start fresh in 2021? I'm not going to cruise till there is a vaccine! I  lifted and shifted my December cruise till next December 2021!

I'm sure you know the obvious simple answer - Celebrity wants to keep your money as long as possible to maintain as much positive cash flow as possible (perhaps I should have said to minimize the negative cash flow as much as possible.)