Jump to content

Updated info on possible vaccine


Dwight1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dr Fauci yesterday stated that a vaccine that is safe and effective would not happen until at least December or January. But said it’s highly unlikely that it would be highly effective as many want. It might be 75% effective but most likely near 50% as is the case for the current flu vaccines. The FDA has stated they will approve any vaccine that is safe and 50% or more effective. If a vaccine turns out to be 50% effective is this really enough for cruising to resume or will this be the nail in the coffin of cruising? I personally think a 50% vaccine is of limited benefit. Far too low a % and risky. Thoughts ?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Covid 19 is not a flu (completely different virus family).

 

At this point, any vaccine that will be approved for use in the general population will be a phase four study that will gather information on any adverse effects and effectiveness. 

 

There will be no way of knowing how effective the vaccine will be until it is used across a wide range of subjects (age, gender, ethnicity) and the subject pool is big enough for a statistical analysis.

 

Until then, Dr Fauci is giving just a best guess projection of effectiveness based on the limited population of the phase three trials which usually has subject selection criteria as to age and  health.

 

As far as cruising goes, the vaccine will be better than nothing and with rigorous screening procedures before boarding and during the cruise, cruising probably will start again.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are that a vaccine with 50% efficiency will in fact be enough for cruise lines to start cruising again, with many modifications.  Keep in mind that even less effective vaccines tend to also provide some level of protection if someone catches the virus.  The death rates and serious hospitalizations of those who do catch it will decrease.  We also, hopefully, will continue to develop better and better treatments by then.  Those two things combined I believe will allow some cruising to begin.  My opinion.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a long running thread on this basic topic already. Lot of discussion on this subject there.

 

A 50% effective vaccine in the absence of other control measures probably can't stop sustained transmission, but it should slow it down. At 60-65%, the math makes it possible again, but you need somewhere around 80% of the population vaccinated. At 75%, you need around 75% of the population vaccinated. Stopping sustained transmission will ultimately stop the disease. As phoenix_dream says, the odds are pretty good that an imperfect vaccine will still mitigate the effects of the virus on individuals; controlling transmission mitigates its impact on the population and actually starts moving things to "normal", however that gets defined.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don’t confuse flu and corona. Flu vaccines have low efficacy because flu viruses change relatively rapidly, and tend to change both the vaccine targets and the proteins that determine virulence and infectivity (the targets mostly are the virulence proteins). In effect, vaccine formulations for flu are eternally chasing next seasons flu viruses. The efficacy of a particular years vaccine may be low because the vaccine makers chose the wrong antigens to put into the vaccine.

 

We don’t know yet for certain, but SARS Cov-2 doesn’t seem to mutate quite as much as flu. The problem with the vaccine is more likely to be that immunity wanes and individuals will need a booster every year or every other year. Another possibility is that the type of immunity produced by the vaccine is not enough to prevent disease, but will make the disease less severe. In the long term, for human species, this might be the preferable outcome. Some immunity from vaccine, but most immunity from repeated exposure, so that SARS CoV just becomes another coronavirus and “disappears” into the group of corona viruses. I think that this actually may be the most likely scenario - young children develop natural immunity, people over 60 now will need shots lifelong, and people in the middle are in the middle.

This is my somewhat educated opinion.

No matter what, the biggest danger to normal life is a blanket refusal to get vaccinated because it isn’t one and done.

 

Honestly, I think what the cruise lines are working on now is a plan to reopen in a world of partly vaccinated, partly not - vs opening before vaccine OR waiting for herd immunity.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50%? Then I guess I quarantine for life? 😷

 

But seriously, I am thinking this vaccine will be closer to the one we got for polio. A bunch of boosters over the years until it is irradiated. But thankfully, not the flu,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Homosassa said:

Covid 19 is not a flu (completely different virus family).

 

At this point, any vaccine that will be approved for use in the general population will be a phase four study that will gather information on any adverse effects and effectiveness. 

 

There will be no way of knowing how effective the vaccine will be until it is used across a wide range of subjects (age, gender, ethnicity) and the subject pool is big enough for a statistical analysis.

 

Until then, Dr Fauci is giving just a best guess projection of effectiveness based on the limited population of the phase three trials which usually has subject selection criteria as to age and  health.

 

As far as cruising goes, the vaccine will be better than nothing and with rigorous screening procedures before boarding and during the cruise, cruising probably will start again.

Also, they are rolling out a new way of doing the muster drills on passenger's devices and stateroom tv's. Both positive signs! Right?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of a vaccine as another tool to reduce spread.  The goal is to get R0 below 1 and keep it there.  In which case the outbreak will die out.  Data indicates that mask use, in conjunction with distancing can cut spread by 40%.  A vaccine even if only 50% efficient, only taken by 50% of the population reduces it by another non-trivial amount.  Natural immunity would reduce it some more.

 

It may not be enough to restart cruising without additional protective actions, but it would help to reduce case counts and with time help to eventually get to a point of successfully managing the outbreak.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are just hoping that a vaccine will be out in time for our Constellation cruise on February 15th.....50% is better than nothing. The cruise lines will not be business much beyond mid-2021..... if there are no cruises. They will face bankruptcy and a reorganization forced by creditors. Much smaller fleets will be in place if that happens. IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are booked on Apex mid February I think there is no chance that it will now take place. Vaccines are unlikely to be available until the middle of next year at the earliest. Oxford University are way ahead of the curve with a vaccine but still need to prove that its effective and therefore worthwhile. The UK has a population of about 67 million and it will be a massive undertaking to get everyone who wants the vaccine actually vaccinated. Cruise lines may insist that pasangers are vaccinated just like some countries are insisting that anyone coming into the country is swabbed or has proof of a negative test result. Even if people have the vaccine will the immune response work sufficiently well to protect people. In the UK I think its pretty clear that having the virus doesnt mean that we produce antibodies. The truth is that the world may have to get used to living with the virus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vickykay said:

Hoping also for rapid testing available before one boards a ship.

Although rapid testing is only a snapshot of that moment... negative passengers could still be infected/incubating and test positive the very next day, especially if they traveled to get to the port.

 

Hopefully they're also get rapid testing that is a lot more accurate than now.

Edited by twins_to_alaska
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paphoslady said:

Just seen a survey in UK only 53% surveyed said they would take the vaccine.Too low for herd immunity to be effective.

 

For me, I’m not opposed to vaccinations - but I want to see the safety & efficacy data of the vaccine first, before getting the jab.


I believe it was mentioned somewhere above, that essentially the first wave of vaccines will be nothing short of what some of us know as “Phase 4 trials”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tudorcruisers said:

What will happen if you have a cruise booked for say Oct 2021 and they insist on a vaccine and you can’t get it or don’t want to get it.  Will you get a full refund due to the fact when you booked this wasn’t in the terms?  

If vaccines are widely available by then and required for cruising and you don't want to get it, I doubt you will get your money back.  Why should the cruise line have to suffer the loss?  They didn't cause nor know about the virus either when you booked.  It's just bad luck all the way around.  If you can't get it because it is not widely available you may have better luck.  No one knows for sure.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, hvbaskey said:

 

For me, I’m not opposed to vaccinations - but I want to see the safety & efficacy data of the vaccine first, before getting the jab.


I believe it was mentioned somewhere above, that essentially the first wave of vaccines will be nothing short of what some of us know as “Phase 4 trials”.

I understand people wanting to be sure the vaccine is safe before taking it.  At the same time, it is a question about risk.  Let's face it - the world is not 'safe' right now without the vaccine.  What is the worst that could happen if the vaccine proves less than 100% safe?  No one knows, but generally vaccine side effects do not include death (this would almost certainly be determined in earlier trials), and do not often include serious permanent damage (not saying never, just not often).  On the other hand is the virus, which definitely is known to cause death as well as serious and possibly long lasting side affects.  So where is the greater risk?  To me, the greater risk is to not take the vaccine.   The only potentially safer option is to continue to quarantine yourself for years before you know with a high level of certainty that there are no serious long lasting side effects with the vaccine.  A personal decision, but I believe the risk is much greater to not take the vaccine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hvbaskey said:

 

For me, I’m not opposed to vaccinations - but I want to see the safety & efficacy data of the vaccine first, before getting the jab.


I believe it was mentioned somewhere above, that essentially the first wave of vaccines will be nothing short of what some of us know as “Phase 4 trials”.

 

I'm not sure how that's any different from any other approved or licensed drug or biological? Phase IV is post-marketing surveillance and it occurs after approval of a BLA or NDA. It has a better than average chance of being more intense here just because of speed, but I'd consider it a normal process. Maybe we have different understandings and experiences with the terminology?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

I'm not sure how that's any different from any other approved or licensed drug or biological? Phase IV is post-marketing surveillance and it occurs after approval of a BLA or NDA. It has a better than average chance of being more intense here just because of speed, but I'd consider it a normal process. Maybe we have different understandings and experiences with the terminology?

Agree.  And how safe is "safe"?  What determines that?  Read the literature that comes with any prescription or listen to the commercials on tv that list some of the side affects and no one would ever want to take any medication!  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, phoenix_dream said:

If vaccines are widely available by then and required for cruising and you don't want to get it, I doubt you will get your money back.  Why should the cruise line have to suffer the loss?  They didn't cause nor know about the virus either when you booked.  It's just bad luck all the way around.  If you can't get it because it is not widely available you may have better luck.  No one knows for sure.

 

 

Thank you for your reply.  I was just putting it out there to see if anyone knew what might happen.  I know most people can get a flu vaccine for example and are absolutely fine but then I have a relative who had the most awful reaction to just the normal 

 flu jab and this happened twice so I’m rather nervous due to this.  It seems so sad I will never be able to cruise again as I think we are now around our 35th Cruise but if this is how things work out so be it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Tudorcruisers said:

What will happen if you have a cruise booked for say Oct 2021 and they insist on a vaccine and you can’t get it or don’t want to get it.  Will you get a full refund due to the fact when you booked this wasn’t in the terms?  

You need to read the Cruise Ticket Contract, the terms of which you accept as part of booking a cruise. It appears that your non-compliance with Celebrity's rules with respect to vaccinations could result in its refusal to allow you to board, with no liability for refund. The following extract is from Section 8:

 

i. Carrier may refuse to transport any Passenger, and may remove any Passenger from the Vessel or Transport at any time, for any of the following reasons: (i) whenever such action is necessary to comply with any government regulations, directives or instructions; (ii) when a Passenger refuses to permit search of his person or property for explosives, weapons, dangerous materials or other stolen, illegal or prohibited items; (iii) when a Passenger refuses upon request to produce positive identification; or (iv) for failure to comply with Carrier's rules and procedures, including, for example, Carrier's Guest Conduct Policy or Carrier's policies against fraternization with crew; or (v) Guest's passage is denied by Carrier pursuant to its Refusal to Transport policy. Carrier's Guest Conduct Policy and Refusal to Transport policy are available online at www.celebritycruises.comconf.
j. In the interests of safety and security, Passengers and their baggage are subject to inspection or monitoring electronically with or without the Passenger's consent or knowledge.
k. If Carrier exercises its rights under this Section 8, Passenger shall have no claim against Carrier whatsoever and Carrier shall have no liability for refund, compensation loss or damages of Passenger...

Edited by Fouremco
Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Forum Assistance
      • Cruise Critic Live Special Event: Q&A with American Queen Voyages
      • 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...