Finally a CEO stands up to the coronabro cdc!

[Formula280SS]

8 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

I read the article when it was first published. It's speculative, It identifies numerous areas that may be worthwhile studying, but there's no proof that any of the hypotheses are true. In the article Dr. Fauci says:

 

"Others say it’s far too early to draw such conclusions. Anthony S. Fauci, the United States’ top infectious-disease expert, said in an interview that while these ideas are being intensely studied, such theories are premature. He agreed that at least some partial preexisting immunity in some individuals seems a possibility.

And he said the amount of virus someone is exposed to — called the inoculum — “is almost certainly an important and likely factor” based on what we know about other viruses."

But Fauci cautioned there are multiple likely reasons — including youth and general health — that determine whether a particular individual shrugs off the disease or dies of it. He also emphasized that even those with mild illness may have lingering medical issues.

That reinforces the need, in his view, for continued vigilance in social distancing, masking and other precautions.

“There are so many other unknown factors that maybe determine why someone gets an asymptomatic infection,” Fauci said. “It’s a very difficult problem to pinpoint one thing.” "

 

"

 

Yep, agreed.

 

The entire world is on a 'learning curve and one expert thesis can be completely opposite of another.

 

I don't know how many SWEDISH CruiseCritic members we have (would love to here experiences), but Sweden is one country that took a contrarian no lock-down, protect the 'at risk approach, was lambasted and ridiculed for it, but looks pretty well positioned going forward.

 

Also this link is to a very 'right source, but the information in the article is compelling reading (I'm not endorsing it, just found Sweden's professionals quite credentialed).  

 

Still, as you state, it too is speculative heading into "cold and flu" seasons while C19 still active.

 

OP-ED SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

 

Horowitz: While Fauci tells US to ‘hunker down,’ Sweden’s no-lockdown coronavirus results speak for themselves

Sweden took the right path in response to the virus

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-sweden-no-lockdown-coronavirus-results

 

 

[njhorseman]

49 minutes ago, Formula280SS said:

 

Yep, agreed.

 

The entire world is on a 'learning curve and one expert thesis can be completely opposite of another.

 

I don't know how many SWEDISH CruiseCritic members we have (would love to here experiences), but Sweden is one country that took a contrarian no lock-down, protect the 'at risk approach, was lambasted and ridiculed for it, but looks pretty well positioned going forward.

 

Also this link is to a very 'right source, but the information in the article is compelling reading (I'm not endorsing it, just found Sweden's professionals quite credentialed).  

 

Still, as you state, it too is speculative heading into "cold and flu" seasons while C19 still active.

 

OP-ED SEPTEMBER 15, 2020

 

Horowitz: While Fauci tells US to ‘hunker down,’ Sweden’s no-lockdown coronavirus results speak for themselves

Sweden took the right path in response to the virus

https://www.theblaze.com/op-ed/horowitz-sweden-no-lockdown-coronavirus-results

 

 

I'm not going to attempt to decipher this author's data, but I instead I offer data that clearly show Sweden having done much worse in terms of mortality than other countries in the same geographical area with comparable health care and socio-economic factors. Here's a comparison of cumulative case-fatality (aka mortality) rates and deaths per 100K population taken from data compiled by Johns Hopkins University:

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

 

COUNTRY         CASE-FATALITY      DEATHS/100K POP.

Sweden               6.8%                            57.41

Germany              3.6                              11.28

Denmark              3.1                              10.92

Finland                 3.9                                6.11

Norway                2.2                                4.99

 

[njhorseman]

5 hours ago, 4774Papa said:

I have read this from more than one article.

As I recall, the Princess ship that was stuck in Japan for so long, they found a large percentage appeared to be immune.  

 

I did a google search and came up with this

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200716-the-people-with-hidden-protection-from-covid-19

 

This is from another article

Both papers suggest that patients who have had other human coronaviruses—and in particular those who have recently had a chest cold caused by human coronavirus HCoV-OC43—have immune systems that are to some degree primed to fight off an infection by SARS-CoV-2. A study of that cold virus found it was generally connected to a mild upper respiratory infection … which is a lot better than having severe COVID-19.

• This virus, and others that share similar proteins and structures, are endemic and common. Infection by these viruses may be a major factor in why about 85% of those infected with COVID-19 have relatively mild cases while around 50% of that 85% appear to have cases that are very mild or asymptomatic.
• Testing of COVID-19 patients has indicated that a percentage of them—something on the order of 15% in at least two studies—have low levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. These results have been correlated with those who have had mild cases, and may also be connected to those who have had recent infections by other human coronaviruses and acquired a higher level of transient immunity.
• Children may be more immune to COVID-19 at least in part because they are more likely to have a recent infection by HCoV-OC43, or a related coronavirus.
• The shared antibodies with other human coronaviruses may be part of the reason that antibody tests, including those conducted directly on patients and those looking at sources like antibodies found in waste, seem to so often suggest a higher level of infection than might be indicated by testing or medical outcomes.
• This might also explain why some group exposures form a hot spot while others don’t—in some cases, there may have been some “herd immunity” in effect, just from chance clusters of people carrying existing transient immunity.

None of this is certain—in this conclusion I’ve taken things at least half a logical leap beyond the position of either paper. But if substantiated, these results could go a long way toward explaining why the immune response to COVID-19 is so extremely varied.

These papers also strongly suggest that some people have at least a partial safety shield when it comes to developing a severe case of COVID-19. That cough you had back in December or January may not have been COVID-19, but it may save you from catching COVID-19.

 

Yes, I have read articles that say herd immunity will be difficult for COVID-19, but explain why the death rate in Sweden is near zero now.

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/after-months-of-condemnation-swedens-covid-deaths-drop-to-near-zero

 

Speculation, maybes, leaps of faith, research being conducted and the articles you've cited don't add up to your statement that scientists have estimated 40% of the population have natural immunity to COVID-19.

 

And while the death rate may be near zero in Sweden now, over the course of the pandemic Sweden's death rate is far worse than geographically and socio-economically similar countries in Europe, Germany, Denmark, Finland and Norway. Sweden appears to have achieved a low death rate now by allowing the virus to rampantly kill its citizens early on. Once the most vulnerable died, there were few left to kill. Sweden's record is actually horrible.

Here's a comparison of cumulative case-fatality (aka mortality) rates and deaths per 100K population taken from data compiled by Johns Hopkins University:

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

 

COUNTRY         CASE-FATALITY      DEATHS/100K POP.

Sweden               6.8%                            57.41

Germany              3.6                              11.28

Denmark              3.1                              10.92

Finland                 3.9                                6.11

Norway                2.2                                4.99

[Formula280SS]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

I'm not going to attempt to decipher this author's data, but I instead I offer data that clearly show Sweden having done much worse in terms of mortality than other countries in the same geographical area with comparable health care and socio-economic factors. Here's a comparison of cumulative case-fatality (aka mortality) rates and deaths per 100K population taken from data compiled by Johns Hopkins University:

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

 

COUNTRY         CASE-FATALITY      DEATHS/100K POP.

Sweden               6.8%                            57.41

Germany              3.6                              11.28

Denmark              3.1                              10.92

Finland                 3.9                                6.11

Norway                2.2                                4.99

 

 

That is actual data, but not what I was referring to. 

 

Rather the trend line since March to September and the novel, contrarian approach of Sweden; high exposure earlier and little now versus the 'lock-down countries that went from high to lower and now are on the rise again.

 

That was the point of the post re: the competing thesis as we move forward.

 

The cumulative counts (cases, hospitalizations and deaths) don't give perspective as to where one started, what they experienced, where they are now - - - and the bonus, where will they go from here.

 

 

 

[chipmaster]

1 hour ago, njhorseman said:

 

 

COUNTRY         CASE-FATALITY      DEATHS/100K POP.

Sweden               6.8%                            57.41

Germany              3.6                              11.28

Denmark              3.1                              10.92

Finland                 3.9                                6.11

Norway                2.2                                4.99

 

Which country would you judge success, psss for some lower is better, LOL

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, chipmaster said:

 

Which country would you judge success, psss for some lower is better, LOL

Not sure what you're asking or why, but it's rather obvious that in terms of the two key measures of mortality Germany, Denmark, Finland and Norway have far superior records than Sweden and of the five Norway's is the best.

[Formula280SS]

1 hour ago, chipmaster said:

 

Which country would you judge success, psss for some lower is better, LOL

 

It depends if you want to use a "picture" in time or the "entire video."  If using a "picture," then one could use the current picture of each country and you would get a totally different perspective.

 

One alternately could simply view the video, or chart.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, Formula280SS said:

 

That is actual data, but not what I was referring to. 

 

Rather the trend line since March to September and the novel, contrarian approach of Sweden; high exposure earlier and little now versus the 'lock-down countries that went from high to lower and now are on the rise again.

 

That was the point of the post re: the competing thesis as we move forward.

 

The cumulative counts (cases, hospitalizations and deaths) don't give perspective as to where one started, what they experienced, where they are now - - - and the bonus, where will they go from here.

 

 

 

The point is that in the long run I believe the data will demonstrate that Sweden's approach will have unnecessarily cost lives . I've followed the data for months and have seen nothing to indicate that the case-fatality rates and deaths per 100K population in the four comparable countries will ever equal or exceed Sweden's.

[PATRLR]

On 9/14/2020 at 10:01 AM, macandlucy said:

So much of the risk is within our own, individual control. I would not rely on any business to keep me safe; I keep myself safe. By my personal choices and behaviors, I lower my own risk to what is, for me, an acceptable level. I also drive a car. That's got some risk associated with it to, but it's one we are comfortable with.

 

The same people thing I actually see that as a benefit, especially if pre-embark testing is required, which I hope is. Then we're all in just a very large "bubble", as opposed to the strangers we encounter in our daily lives.  Combine that with distancing, hygiene and masks, and for me, it's an okay risk level. It's not zero and it's probably never going to be zero, but it's low enough for me to feel okay.

 

You and I may be only going out once a week, but we aren't forbidden from going out every day. And while we may not be out a lot, many people are. On buses, on subways, in office buildings, malls, etc. We have the option to go out as much as we like and in doing so effectively mimic a cruise ship experience. We have that choice today; we don't have that choice for cruising today.

 

I've enjoyed reading your posts, you've actually swung me a little closer to the "let em start cruising" position.  However, you are making a huge assumption and you may be leaving out one factor (maybe you mentioned it).

 

The assumption is that the cruise lines do all the right things.  Sure they have a significant vested in interest in doing it right, but I don't trust them.  I'm certain I won't be an early adopter of the new cruise paradigm and you betcha I'll be watching very closely as they start to resume.

 

The thing you may be overlooking is your fellow passengers.  Will they all follow all the rules?  Will they always wear a mask if that is the requirement, will they always wash their hands when they are supposed to, will they not serve themselves if the attendant has stepped away, will they not sit in those seats that are blocked off for distancing purposes, will they not deviate from the planned excursions, etc etc (and the point isn't those specific rules, it's whatever rules they put in place).  We see it every day where, for whatever reason, people don't follow the guidelines in their communities. Will they follow them on the cruise ship and what does it mean to me if they don't?

 

On 9/14/2020 at 10:47 AM, macandlucy said:

If the cruise lines do have a mask mandate, I believe there will be no "choosing" to wear one. Refusal, I expect, will mean sweet, sweet cabin restriction til we can debark you at the next port. That's my guess anyway -- it ain't gonna be like shorts in the dining room on formal nights.  (Like they do on other lines)

In my opinion, this had better be the case if they want to get people like me back on board.  Not only do they need the correct practices put in place, but they HAVE TO make sure they are followed.

 

[njhorseman]

1 hour ago, PATRLR said:

In my opinion, this had better be the case if they want to get people like me back on board.  Not only do they need the correct practices put in place, but they HAVE TO make sure they are followed.

It looks like Costa has the right idea. Other cruise lines need to follow this lead:

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5593/ 

 

"Face masks are required on the ship in all indoor public areas, Carino said -- and he has directed crew to be strict in enforcement."We are very picky on the use of the face mask because it's really something that has proven to be really successful into reducing the virus spread in a confined space," he said.The three exceptions to face mask use are when passengers are seated at a bar or restaurant (all of which have had seating recalibrated to allow distancing), when they are exercising in the gym and when they are on the outside decks and able to be away from other people."What we have observed is that guests are generally using the face mask," Carino said. "They do need to be reminded from time to time to cover their nose."Reminding passengers to wear the mask properly is something that all staff and crew have been instructed to do, Carino said.

"I've done it myself," he said, adding that it has been a cultural change for many crew who are not used to correcting passenger behavior in this way."It takes some time to convince our crew colleagues not to be shy, but it's better to be safe than sorry," Carino said. Most people simply apologize and put the mask on correctly, he said.And if a passenger gets angry or confrontational? "If they insist on having a negative attitude or if they become aggressive, then their cruise would stop. End of story."I tend to be very protective of our crew onboard in normal situations. ... Now I'm hyper-protective of them because it's become a matter of public health. I want our crew to be really strict.""

 

[macandlucy]

1 hour ago, PATRLR said:

I've enjoyed reading your posts, you've actually swung me a little closer to the "let em start cruising" position.  However, you are making a huge assumption and you may be leaving out one factor (maybe you mentioned it).

 

The assumption is that the cruise lines do all the right things.  Sure they have a significant vested in interest in doing it right, but I don't trust them.  I'm certain I won't be an early adopter of the new cruise paradigm and you betcha I'll be watching very closely as they start to resume.

 

The thing you may be overlooking is your fellow passengers.  Will they all follow all the rules?  Will they always wear a mask if that is the requirement, will they always wash their hands when they are supposed to, will they not serve themselves if the attendant has stepped away, will they not sit in those seats that are blocked off for distancing purposes, will they not deviate from the planned excursions, etc etc (and the point isn't those specific rules, it's whatever rules they put in place).  We see it every day where, for whatever reason, people don't follow the guidelines in their communities. Will they follow them on the cruise ship and what does it mean to me if they don't?

 

In my opinion, this had better be the case if they want to get people like me back on board.  Not only do they need the correct practices put in place, but they HAVE TO make sure they are followed.

 

It's heartening to know someone is reading my posts, so thank you. :)  I hope I have made it plain that my intention is not to try to change the minds of people who don't feel safe going on a cruise; do what is best for you. I just want to be able have my ability to make that choice for myself restored.

 

Can we trust the cruise lines do do what's necessary? I do think they have so much riding on it that they don't have any other choice, so I believe they will do everything they can. I'd also need routine temp checks, a great isolation and tracing strategy if and when they find cases, and ideally pre-board testing. Will there be mistakes?Yep -- Hurtigruten. But I contrast that with MSC, who appear to have taken it very seriously and have very good protocols in place, and so far, so good.  I expect, like any place on earth, there will be positive cases. But one positive case on a ship does not mean everyone on board will get Covid, especially if you have been looking out for yourself and if that case is isolated.

 

Can I count on others to always do the right thing or even, to understand what the right thing is? No. But that's no different on a cruise ship than it is anywhere.  The deal breaker for me from the cruise lines is the air filtration -- I'd need to know that's been improved to a high standard before I'd feel comfortable removing my mask on board. I can do my own distancing and hand hygiene. I always have plenty of clean masks -- I have been wearing them in all indoor spaces since February, so I am used to them. I expect buffets will be only staff served for a while, and staff would be wearing a good mask while serving it. I might balk at things like bread or raw food, not sure how I would handle that. Food is not a serious known driver of infection afaik, but I'm very cautious, so I might pass on that.

 

I have taken this thing very, very seriously from the beginning. And the strategy I have always employed is simple: assume every person and every surface you encounter is absolutely festering with Covid-19, and act accordingly. If I'm going to somewhere where I'll be indoors, around a bunch of strangers, I wear two masks -- a surgical one and an effective cloth one over top of it.  Because not everyone wears them, and I don't have much confidence is the quality of masks others wear. I touch only what I must, but even then I don't worry too much because I don't risk inoculating myself by touching my face. I keep effective hand sanitizer in my car and that's the first thing I do when I open the door. Etc. Because I (and my family members) do all of that, I'm not super worried about what others do.  Knowing what I know now, I feel it's mostly my own actions, not the actions of the businesses, that keep me safe.  But no cruising for me without vastly improved air filtration (for when we are in our cabin, where I don't want to be wearing a mask, but having said that, can tell you I'm thinking about making sleep masks ;)

 

Again, I don't want to try talk anyone into anything; I just want the ability to make my own choice, like people who can take land vacations have today.

 

ETA: I also take vitamin D supplements and would travel with zinc lozenges. 

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by macandlucy

[macandlucy]

20 minutes ago, njhorseman said:

It looks like Costa has the right idea. Other cruise lines need to follow this lead:

https://www.cruisecritic.com/news/5593/ 

 

"Face masks are required on the ship in all indoor public areas, Carino said -- and he has directed crew to be strict in enforcement."We are very picky on the use of the face mask because it's really something that has proven to be really successful into reducing the virus spread in a confined space," he said.The three exceptions to face mask use are when passengers are seated at a bar or restaurant (all of which have had seating recalibrated to allow distancing), when they are exercising in the gym and when they are on the outside decks and able to be away from other people."What we have observed is that guests are generally using the face mask," Carino said. "They do need to be reminded from time to time to cover their nose."Reminding passengers to wear the mask properly is something that all staff and crew have been instructed to do, Carino said.

"I've done it myself," he said, adding that it has been a cultural change for many crew who are not used to correcting passenger behavior in this way."It takes some time to convince our crew colleagues not to be shy, but it's better to be safe than sorry," Carino said. Most people simply apologize and put the mask on correctly, he said.And if a passenger gets angry or confrontational? "If they insist on having a negative attitude or if they become aggressive, then their cruise would stop. End of story."I tend to be very protective of our crew onboard in normal situations. ... Now I'm hyper-protective of them because it's become a matter of public health. I want our crew to be really strict.""

 

That is good, but "face masks" is a side eyer. One ply, 180 thread count mask? Virtually useless. N95 mask, much, much better. It really depends on the mask, so if the cruise lines are worried about transmission, they should probably consider providing effective masks to passengers and not leave that up to passengers who may or may not know anything about masks.

[njhorseman]

1 minute ago, macandlucy said:

That is good, but "face masks" is a side eyer. One ply, 180 thread count mask? Virtually useless. N95 mask, much, much better. It really depends on the mask, so if the cruise lines are worried about transmission, they should probably consider providing effective masks to passengers and not leave that up to passengers who may or may not know anything about masks.

If everyone is wearing a mask you don't need an N95 respirator. You're not in a hospital ER or intensive care unit where there's a massive viral load. A properly worn two ply cloth mask will help prevent the transmission of the virus:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200612172200.htm

[macandlucy]

I didn't say you need to wear an N95.  I'm not going to argue a point I didn't make, but your take on masks is kind of why I wear two, if I'm being honest.

 

 

 

 

[njhorseman]

17 minutes ago, macandlucy said:

I didn't say you need to wear an N95.  I'm not going to argue a point I didn't make, but your take on masks is kind of why I wear two, if I'm being honest.

 

 

 

 

It's not my take on masks, it's the take of experts.

 

[macandlucy]

Just now, njhorseman said:

It's not my take on masks, it's the take of experts.

 

It's the take of some.  Other experts have different takes. There are even those who say they are all pretty much ineffective at preventing virus transmission, even N95s. 

 

I know this because I did a very deep dive on learning about mask effectiveness when I was making them. Since there's still some disagreement, you have to go with the research that you think made the best case -- best experimental methods, best sample, best conclusions drawn. For me, the broad "two ply fabric mask" recommendation people didn't win the argument.  

 

[njhorseman]

8 hours ago, macandlucy said:

It's the take of some.  Other experts have different takes. There are even those who say they are all pretty much ineffective at preventing virus transmission, even N95s. 

 

I know this because I did a very deep dive on learning about mask effectiveness when I was making them. Since there's still some disagreement, you have to go with the research that you think made the best case -- best experimental methods, best sample, best conclusions drawn. For me, the broad "two ply fabric mask" recommendation people didn't win the argument.  

 

Can you provide links that substantiate there are recognized experts who have scientific evidence of all masks being ineffective, including N95s ?

Also, scientific consensus on masks has changed since the early days of the pandemic. I'd particularly like to see something recent...and from sources as credible as the Mayo Clinic for example.

I appreciate that you were making masks when they were in short supply, but scientific understanding of how the virus is transmitted and recommendations for prevention of its spread have changed substantially over time. 

[Formula280SS]

14 hours ago, njhorseman said:

The point is that in the long run I believe the data will demonstrate that Sweden's approach will have unnecessarily cost lives . I've followed the data for months and have seen nothing to indicate that the case-fatality rates and deaths per 100K population in the four comparable countries will ever equal or exceed Sweden's.

 

Well, you appear to eclipse the capabilities of the entire field of global epidemiologists as far as successfully making a conclusive analysis of this virus; after merely following the data. 

 

Also, cherry-picking four countries for comparison to the post regarding Sweden's contrarian approach (as outlined) to "all of the countries that went lock-down" ignores the massive amounts of regional data from such other countries.

 

So, for those who do not feel equally endowed in global epidemiology, and simply looking at the Sweden chart for the entire period March to September and comparing to the others is doable and pretty basic and it is obvious something 'is different. 

 

Whether or not it, going forward, it ends up being the better approach?  I don't believe I have the same ability to project such as you do.  I just can't see into the future. 

 

If I could, I'd have ordered this yacht.

 

Edited September 16, 2020 by Formula280SS

[njhorseman]

39 minutes ago, Formula280SS said:

 

Well, you appear to eclipse the capabilities of the entire field of global epidemiologists as far as successfully making a conclusive analysis of this virus; after merely following the data. 

 

Also, cherry-picking four countries for comparison to the post regarding Sweden's contrarian approach (as outlined) to "all of the countries that went lock-down" ignores the massive amounts of regional data from such other countries.

 

So, for those who do not feel equally endowed in global epidemiology, and simply looking at the Sweden chart for the entire period March to September and comparing to the others is doable and pretty basic and it is obvious something 'is different. 

 

Whether or not it, going forward, it ends up being the better approach?  I don't believe I have the same ability to project such as you do.  I just can't see into the future. 

 

If I could, I'd have ordered this yacht.

 

You're right about one thing...it's unlikely you have the same ability to project as I do. As a mathematician and actuary, and prior to my retirement from the corporate world head of strategic planning for a giant insurance company, I spent  decades analyzing data and making as accurate as possible predictions for the future from that data. I certainly haven't done any sophisticated analyses on these data, but I'll stand by what my experience and mathematical intuition are suggesting until proven wrong.

 

And the countries I chose weren't cherry-picked. By geography, socio-economic measures, and ready availability of high quality healthcare, they're an appropriate cohort.

 

You have a very bad habit of relying on snarky condescension in your posts, which speaks volumes about you.

[macandlucy]

10 hours ago, njhorseman said:

If everyone is wearing a mask you don't need an N95 respirator. You're not in a hospital ER or intensive care unit where there's a massive viral load. A properly worn two ply cloth mask will help prevent the transmission of the virus:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0714-americans-to-wear-masks.html

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/coronavirus-mask/art-20485449

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200612172200.htm

Back in March, when our governments were telling people not to wear masks because "they don't work". I knew that was bs, simply because health care workers were desperate to get them. If they didn't work, then why did health care workers want them? I found it absurd --  of course they work. But, a surprising number of people argued with me at the time by quoting back leaders in public health who said "masks don't work" and "the science isn't clear". In order to make a claim like that, there pretty much has to be some science that supports it, an sure enough, there is.  

 

Our health experts at the time were concerned about people going out and buying up all the masks, leaving healthcare workers even more vulnerable to lack of PPE. It'was a noble goal, and I 100% agree that healthcare workers get the masks over the public every time, but the obvious lying about it has eroded my trust in public health experts.  I wish they had just said, nope, you can't have them, health care workers need them.  I would have supported that, I can't support the willful deception for a good cause.  

 

The Mayo Clinic online link,  is an article, medical reporting.  The author includes only the studies that support the argument, not the ones that don't.  When I did my deep dive, I read the journal articles the researchers (scientists) themselves wrote, all that I could find. That included some that questioned the efficacy of all masks (what our experts were calling "the science" back when it suited their narrative at the time). What about recency? Well, unless there's been some very new discoveries in fabrics or the measurement of aerosols, I don't think that's all that important in this case.

 

Why do you want me to link to a scientific journal article that questions the effectiveness of masks, including N95s? Maybe because you don't believe me, like I just threw that out there, ignoring the fact that everyone has an internet connection and access to a search engine? C'mon man! (Couldn't resist ;)  Or because you think I don't understand the difference between an opinion and a scientific study? (Spoiler alert: I do.) Truly, I have nothing to prove, I don't care about winning an internet argument. But mostly, I want cruising to resume, and that wouldn't help my cause at all! 

 

My personal takeaway from my own deep dive is this: some masks are more effective than others and wear an effective one.  I think cruise lines would be smart to make available the most effective masks they can if they are worried about aerosols. That's my opinion.

 

 

[njhorseman]

27 minutes ago, macandlucy said:

My personal takeaway from my own deep dive is this: some masks are more effective than others and wear an effective one.  I think cruise lines would be smart to make available the most effective masks they can if they are worried about aerosols. That's my opinion.

I have no argument with that.

[SpainAlien]

Meinshift II had masks in every cabin FOC for the guests use according to Morgan's version Unofficial report on his experience onboard a couple of weeks ago

[ToroAzul]

On 9/11/2020 at 9:51 AM, Oakman58 said:

I'm not in a rush to get on a ship (A.K.A. floating petri dish of illness) until the COVID virus is under control and there is an effective vaccine for it.

You waiting for a norovirus vaccine as well?

 

ETA: Liberty and freedom are scary.

Edited September 17, 2020 by ToroAzul

[JoLoves2Travel]

If I have to cruise wearing a mask all the time, I won’t ever cruise again. I would like to see people’s faces. 

[chipmaster]

2 hours ago, JoLoves2Travel said:

If I have to cruise wearing a mask all the time, I won’t ever cruise again. I would like to see people’s faces. 

 

I used to spend a lot of time in a clean room where you are covered except your eyes, you quickly learn to recognize people, and can figure out if they are smiling or not, happy to see you or not 🙂

 

Of course some you wish were uncovered, and others you are glad they are covered, that probably relates more to the pool wear than dining room wear, LOL