APPROPRIATE ACTIONS OR EXTREME MEASURES?

[llawrence]

My concern is more about the testing prior to the cruise and what my insurance will pay for.....we take at least 3 to 4 cruises a year ( normal year). If I need a test prior to each cruise....will my insurance pay for it?  Here in NC , they usually require symptoms before testing....you can find some independent medical facilities that will test you without symptoms.....they cost...I have heard it can be up to 250 per test.....this could get expensive....

[Oceangoer2]

11 minutes ago, llawrence said:

My concern is more about the testing prior to the cruise and what my insurance will pay for.....we take at least 3 to 4 cruises a year ( normal year). If I need a test prior to each cruise....will my insurance pay for it?  Here in NC , they usually require symptoms before testing....you can find some independent medical facilities that will test you without symptoms.....they cost...I have heard it can be up to 250 per test.....this could get expensive....

 

I don't think it's feasible to test before cruising..the virus could be contracted on the flight to the ship which wouldn't be detectable until at sea days later.  There's actually no safeguard prior to sailing......temp at embarkation wouldn't detect the virus either unless it's elevated .  IMO only way to travel is with a RELIABLE vaccine...which may be months away.  Indications are this may be a possibility Spring or early Summer...hopefully.

[C-Dragons]

18 minutes ago, Fouremco said:

Rick, had this thread discussed protocols for sailing out of the UK, and a Brit stated that he wasn't concerned about COVID-19, I would have made the same comment with respect to UK deaths. And yes, the same with a Canadian covidiot had we been talking about potential protocols to be imposed by a Canadian agency. Any resident of any country who makes such a statement needs to be reminded of what the consequences are of adopting such an attitude.

 

12 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

No problem,  and no offense taken.   I do agree that covidiots are out there in most countries. Most will not care about our reminders here or anywhere since they care less about anything other than themselves.  Hoping for a Vaccine soon and restart of an enjoyable and safe cruise experience!  That is my focus anyway.

Regardless of whether one disagrees with another's point of view, why is it necessary to use a disparaging label?

[Fouremco]

49 minutes ago, C-Dragons said:

 

Regardless of whether one disagrees with another's point of view, why is it necessary to use a disparaging label?

Like social distancing and flattening the curve, covidiot has become part of the global vocabulary in 2020. In my opinion, the label covidiot, slang for someone who disregards health and safety guidelines for the novel coronavirus, is entirely appropriate for those people who refuse to accept the threat posed by COVID-19.  

[Rob-Bob]

Wow. And you are even considering cruising again?  Too many risks.

[Goodtime Cruizin]

See you on board... I'll be shipfaced. 

[Pinboy]

6 hours ago, TeeRick said:

 I do agree that covidiots are out there in most countries. Most will not care about our reminders here or anywhere since they care less about anything other than themselves. 

Absolutely correct-- Doesn't matter where you come from.

Just read what some of the " Idiots " post on CC to rile us , oops, me up . 

They are probably the same people in line at GR on the last night to remove the gratuities because :

Their room Steward didn't ask them if they had a good time in port , or forgot to leave the 6th bar of soap they " needed " by day 2 ,  or their waiter didn't , etc, etc.

 

[D C]

 

9 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Fouremco you are one I do respect here.  Yes we do have a lot of cases and deaths in the USA.  This is very well documented and discussed.  The vast majority of us in the USA are very concerned and we are doing our part the best we can.  There are of course people everywhere in every country that just think for themselves and flaunt the rules.  Very sad but very human.  Unfortunately many countries that initially controlled the virus are now subject to rising cases and deaths- yes even Canada.  I am not at all happy about this global second wave- but it has been predicted since early this year.  There is no need for any of us here to comment on other countries  - we are all in this together.  Thanks!🙂

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/americas/canada-coronavirus-spike-large-gatherings/index.html

 

8 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

Very nicely said.  It is indeed true that most of us are doing our best here in the US.  

 

In point of fact, while I am not defending how well we are or are not doing, we currently rank 9th (depending on date of survey) in deaths per 100.000 of population.  But for some reason the US is the country consistently criticized on Cruise Critic, even though several other countries with large amounts of cruisers as well as infected people per their population are not even mentioned (I will not single out any one).  One reason our numbers are large is because we are large, and sensationalist news headlines like to focus on things that will grab people's attention.  Large numbers do that, especially when quoted without context, such as rates per capita.   Unfortunately cases are rising again in many countries, even those who had good numbers before.  We are all fighting this together and it would be nice if we could think that way.

The disease doesn’t care where any country is ranked right now.   The counties at the bottom of the list, quite frankly, have their work cut out for them if they intend to get to the end of COVID without some sort of spike.  Low numbers are extremely fragile, and the long term strategy for everyone really matters. 

 

We’re long past the narrative of “flatten the curve (so as to not overwhelm the medical system)”.  It’s been months since any healthcare system has been anywhere close to overwhelmed by COVID.   Ventilators are stacking up in storage, unused.  Instead, we’re in the paradoxical realm of needing to reach herd immunity, yet freaking out with every minor spread of the disease among any age group.

 

The current global strategy seems to be either 1) Wait for a vaccine with unknown efficacy and a sub-50% acceptance rate for a virus type that has never seen a vaccine before, or 2) keep the spread at a minimum and hope the virus gives up and goes away. 

 

To that end, I’m not sure what “doing our best” actually means anymore.  Sure, nobody wants to get sick, yet the survival rate is well over 99%., but there is no light at the end of the tunnel with the current approach, imho.

 

[D C]

On 9/25/2020 at 11:05 AM, AtSeaSoon said:

 

I don't think it's feasible to test before cruising..the virus could be contracted on the flight to the ship which wouldn't be detectable until at sea days later.  There's actually no safeguard prior to sailing......temp at embarkation wouldn't detect the virus either unless it's elevated .  IMO only way to travel is with a RELIABLE vaccine...which may be months away.  Indications are this may be a possibility Spring or early Summer...hopefully.

 

The safeguard is the significant unlikelihood of coming into contact with someone with the disease.   In the past 7 days, there have been just over 300k "confirmed" cases in the US.  Using simple math since 'active cases' isn't easily tracked, and assuming last 7 day cases represents 'active' cases reasonably well, that means that less than 1/10 of 1% of the population is currently infected.  Roughly 1 out of every 1000 people.   

 

You would need to find one of those 1/1000 people and then come in close enough contact with them for a sufficiently long period of time to receive an inoculating dose of COVID.    If you fly Southwest, the biggest 737 holds about 175 people.  If flights were full, it would be 1 COVID case for every ~6 flights.  (1/6 odds of covid on your flight) Then you would need to be close enough to that person to be infected.  Let's say that's 5 people around that person, or 1/175.   So 1/6 * 1/175 = 0.1% chance of contracting the virus when flying to port.   But even that's high since a significant portion (vast majority likely) of the sick people are actually staying home. 

 

Frankly, you're more likely to win the 1000 ticket raffle for a new car from the local charity than you are to get COVID en route to the cruise.  Does that mean to not take precautions?  Not at all.  But our actions and compromises need to be rationalized with both the likelihood of contracting the disease and the expected severity of the disease should we contract it, given our individual health status and potential co-morbidities. 

 

 

[Spif Barwunkel]

Given where the planet is today, many countries experiencing those projected increases in C19 cases and even more surges forthcoming through the end of 2020, is it realistic to even think that cruising will resume in the near future (within a year)? Will any appropriate actions suffice in allowing us to once again play on the water? Or, must we now consider only extreme measures, perhaps to the point where cruising would be entirely too suffocating to enjoy.

 

I get stats and I get science. I'm a believer. But I also get the unknown, even though it is just that. I tend to err on the side of caution, always have. Not right, not wrong, just my thing. When new cruising protocols are put in place,  I wonder how long it will be before we put them to practice. Hopefully, it will be at the right time and for the right reasons.   

[LGW59]

17 minutes ago, Spif Barwunkel said:

Given where the planet is today, many countries experiencing those projected increases in C19 cases and even more surges forthcoming through the end of 2020, is it realistic to even think that cruising will resume in the near future (within a year)? Will any appropriate actions suffice in allowing us to once again play on the water? Or, must we now consider only extreme measures, perhaps to the point where cruising would be entirely too suffocating to enjoy.

 

I get stats and I get science. I'm a believer. But I also get the unknown, even though it is just that. I tend to err on the side of caution, always have. Not right, not wrong, just my thing. When new cruising protocols are put in place,  I wonder how long it will be before we put them to practice. Hopefully, it will be at the right time and for the right reasons.   

well said bro!

[D C]

19 minutes ago, Spif Barwunkel said:

Given where the planet is today, many countries experiencing those projected increases in C19 cases and even more surges forthcoming through the end of 2020, is it realistic to even think that cruising will resume in the near future (within a year)? Will any appropriate actions suffice in allowing us to once again play on the water? Or, must we now consider only extreme measures, perhaps to the point where cruising would be entirely too suffocating to enjoy.

 

I get stats and I get science. I'm a believer. But I also get the unknown, even though it is just that. I tend to err on the side of caution, always have. Not right, not wrong, just my thing. When new cruising protocols are put in place,  I wonder how long it will be before we put them to practice. Hopefully, it will be at the right time and for the right reasons.   

It depends entirely on how we define a "surge" and whether that relates to a taxation of the healthcare system and/or leads to an increase in deaths.  "surges" among college age people seem to be in the news lately, but that's hardly the demographic of concern from the broader perspective. 

 

Florida is essentially open now without restrictions if I believe the news articles.  A transition to personal responsibility from government-dictated responsibility, I guess.  We'll have to wait and see what happens in terms of healthcare system capacity. 

[Lastdance]

On 9/25/2020 at 7:50 AM, llawrence said:

My concern is more about the testing prior to the cruise and what my insurance will pay for.....we take at least 3 to 4 cruises a year ( normal year). If I need a test prior to each cruise....will my insurance pay for it?  Here in NC , they usually require symptoms before testing....you can find some independent medical facilities that will test you without symptoms.....they cost...I have heard it can be up to 250 per test.....this could get expensive....

I have an MDVIP doctor and paid $40.00, but that could change in an instant!  He also isn't doing flu shots until second week in October due to the flu season...I have friends who received theirs in August!

[llawrence]

My doctor agrees with yours on flu shots......I just read in a Newsweek blurb that a TUI ship off the coast of Greece just had 4 crew test positive even after precruise  testing of the whole crew and passengers.....apparently still going to finish the cruise.....anyone have any more info on this?

[Fouremco]

3 minutes ago, llawrence said:

My doctor agrees with yours on flu shots......I just read in a Newsweek blurb that a TUI ship off the coast of Greece just had 4 crew test positive even after precruise  testing of the whole crew and passengers.....apparently still going to finish the cruise.....anyone have any more info on this?

Go to recent posts on this thread:

 

 

[llawrence]

Thanks....must have skipped a page....

[phoenix_dream]

On 9/27/2020 at 7:09 PM, D C said:

 

The safeguard is the significant unlikelihood of coming into contact with someone with the disease.   In the past 7 days, there have been just over 300k "confirmed" cases in the US.  Using simple math since 'active cases' isn't easily tracked, and assuming last 7 day cases represents 'active' cases reasonably well, that means that less than 1/10 of 1% of the population is currently infected.  Roughly 1 out of every 1000 people.   

 

You would need to find one of those 1/1000 people and then come in close enough contact with them for a sufficiently long period of time to receive an inoculating dose of COVID.    If you fly Southwest, the biggest 737 holds about 175 people.  If flights were full, it would be 1 COVID case for every ~6 flights.  (1/6 odds of covid on your flight) Then you would need to be close enough to that person to be infected.  Let's say that's 5 people around that person, or 1/175.   So 1/6 * 1/175 = 0.1% chance of contracting the virus when flying to port.   But even that's high since a significant portion (vast majority likely) of the sick people are actually staying home. 

 

Frankly, you're more likely to win the 1000 ticket raffle for a new car from the local charity than you are to get COVID en route to the cruise.  Does that mean to not take precautions?  Not at all.  But our actions and compromises need to be rationalized with both the likelihood of contracting the disease and the expected severity of the disease should we contract it, given our individual health status and potential co-morbidities. 

 

 

I see what you are saying.  And yet I, a retiree living in my own home, know at least 11 people who have definitely had the virus, including one who has died.   I know several others who believe they may have had it early on but testing was not available at the time. Just my little piece of the world, I get that, but it makes me wonder how accurate the statistics really are.

[Life Buoy]

14 hours ago, Fouremco said:

Go to recent posts on this thread:

 

 

Miaminice just reported that the retests on the crew turned out negative. Seems that there is a problem with the Greek lab .

[D C]

11 hours ago, phoenix_dream said:

I see what you are saying.  And yet I, a retiree living in my own home, know at least 11 people who have definitely had the virus, including one who has died.   I know several others who believe they may have had it early on but testing was not available at the time. Just my little piece of the world, I get that, but it makes me wonder how accurate the statistics really are.

Understood.

One of the fallacies of my statistics, as well as the epidemiological models is that they assume a perfectly random distribution of positive cases throughout the population, and that each individual has an equal chance of running into every other person.

 

Of course that isn't true as we're not random creatures. The result is that the disease infiltrates sub-populations rather than a perfect cross section of the greater population. 

 

That's why while you know many who have been infected, many others know nobody who has. But it also means that instead of the 6th plane having a case, it might be 4 cases on the 24th plane since people travel in groups. Or every plane from one area but none whatsoever from another area. 

 

 

[D C]

2 hours ago, Life Buoy said:

Miaminice just reported that the retests on the crew turned out negative. Seems that there is a problem with the Greek lab .

Oh isn't cruising going to be fun going forward! 

[markeb]

4 minutes ago, D C said:

Understood.

One of the fallacies of my statistics, as well as the epidemiological models is that they assume a perfectly random distribution of positive cases throughout the population, and that each individual has an equal chance of running into every other person.

 

Of course that isn't true as we're not random creatures. The result is that the disease infiltrates sub-populations rather than a perfect cross section of the greater population. 

 

That's why while you know many who have been infected, many others know nobody who has. But it also means that instead of the 6th plane having a case, it might be 4 cases on the 24th plane since people travel in groups. Or every plane from one area but none whatsoever from another area. 

 

 

 

You can run epidemiological models that are much more complicated than a single random distribution population. I assume most of the models being run at Hopkins, for instance, are using multiple subpopulations and do not assume random mixing. Takes a lot more time, even with good computers, but would much better fit the observed behavior over last 6 months or so. The challenge is projecting forward if you over fit the curve.

[phoenix_dream]

13 minutes ago, D C said:

Understood.

One of the fallacies of my statistics, as well as the epidemiological models is that they assume a perfectly random distribution of positive cases throughout the population, and that each individual has an equal chance of running into every other person.

 

Of course that isn't true as we're not random creatures. The result is that the disease infiltrates sub-populations rather than a perfect cross section of the greater population. 

 

That's why while you know many who have been infected, many others know nobody who has. But it also means that instead of the 6th plane having a case, it might be 4 cases on the 24th plane since people travel in groups. Or every plane from one area but none whatsoever from another area. 

 

 

The interesting part of my observations is that 1) I live in an area with a low infection rate, 2) the people in question are not necessarily in my usual 'bubble' - most are acquaintances at best and/or family/friends of family/friends. and 3) being retired I don't interact with nearly the amount of people I did in my working days so my base of exposure is much smaller than 10 years ago. I absolutely get the point you are making, but add all these factors together and it makes the statistics somewhat suspect I believe.

[C-Dragons]

57 minutes ago, D C said:

Oh isn't cruising going to be fun going forward! 

More like a box of chocolates.

You won't know what you’re going to get.

[K.T.B.]

1 hour ago, D C said:

Oh isn't cruising going to be fun going forward! 

 Yes it will be!  Because by then things will be set in place to make sure it is.

[D C]

4 hours ago, markeb said:

 

You can run epidemiological models that are much more complicated than a single random distribution population. I assume most of the models being run at Hopkins, for instance, are using multiple subpopulations and do not assume random mixing. Takes a lot more time, even with good computers, but would much better fit the observed behavior over last 6 months or so. The challenge is projecting forward if you over fit the curve.

There's a saying about models:
All models are wrong, some models are useful.

 

One of the big challenges is determining what societal behaviour looks like from a disease transmission perspective.  Unfortunately, many of the models are far more simplistic than you assume, and often do use very basic parameters to represent human interaction.   That's how the presumption of herd immunity was determined (for vaccinations) that says 60% of the population is the magic number.   A study that tries to make better representations of human interactions puts that number far lower.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6505/846

 

On the modeling side, the last 6 months of data really doesn't help as it's been nothing but abnormal behaviour-wise.  It's an interesting data point for what happens in a lock-down, but it does little to suggest a path out of COVID.  I found this New England Journal of Medicine article interesting in regards to modeling:  https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2016822

In all mechanistic models, epidemics can die away in two ways: either the disease runs out of fuel because there are no longer enough susceptible people to infect, or something changes to slow or halt transmission — for example, the number of contacts is reduced by dramatic physical distancing interventions. Since this latter mechanism slows the spread of disease without changing the number of people at risk, Covid-19 models agree that almost all populations are at risk of disease resurgence when societies reopen.

 

The current situation is like taking shelter in a bad horror movie.  The killer is still out there waiting for you when you start to think the coast is clear and try to leave.  Epidemiologists (Fauci included) have offered nothing in terms of a non-vaccine long-term strategy that gets us past COVID19, and two of the major vaccine trials were paused the last I saw.