Vacinated. COVID test required?

[Daniel A]

4 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

Daniel;

 

I believe you’re making a false assumption. If you’re not vaccinated, you won’t be on the ship. There won’t be anti vaxers aboard to worry about. Masks will then disappear.

I fervently hope so.  😉 

[ORV]

18 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

Getting away from refunds and returning to the topic here, I am wondering if you're vaccinated will you be required to still wear a mask?  Since the typical mask in use now only protects the other people not the wearer, I wonder why I would still need to wear a mask on a ship.  Will I still need to wear a mask in order to protect the anti vaxxers?  Or will those who didn't get vaccinated need to wear their own N95 mask which is designed to protect the wearer?

I'm no Dr, and don't play one of TV either, but I do believe the "no protection" for the wearer has been amended over the past few months. I believe the original reason for that line was due to shortages.

 

Also, most of the information I've heard and read is that masks will still need to be worn well into the vaccination era. 

[Tranquility Base]

39 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I wonder why I would still need to wear a mask on a ship.

Do the vaccines soon to be administered around the world, stop a vaccinated person from actually having Covid and passing it on to others ?

 

I know the vaccines have high efficiency against developing symptoms, especially serious symptoms, but apart from that I haven't seen definitive answers to the question.

[LHT28]

20 minutes ago, Tranquility Base said:

Do the vaccines soon to be administered around the world, stop a vaccinated person from actually having Covid and passing it on to others ?

 

 

That is  the big elephant in the room

No one  has  put in writing  that they have  had the vaccine & came in contact with a Covid positive person & NOT  gotten Covid

 Until I see proof  of  no transmission to a vaccinated person I will still be wearing a mask & distancing from others

YMMV

 

Everyone is expecting the vaccine to be the magic bullet to cure the World  but some people even with vaccines  may still be at risk

[pinotlover]

I’m trying to decide how this proof can be made. Only way I can picture it is:

 

1. A person would have to be fully vaccinated.

 

2. A group of non vaccinated people would have to be quarantined and then placed in a “ bubble “ so to eliminate outside influences.

 

3. The vaccinated volunteer(s) from #1 would then have to be placed in contact with someone known to have the virus.

 

4.  That person would then have to intermingle with #2 and watch for results.

 

However, this alone won’t absolutely prove the case. The Swiss study showed that 60% of the cases came from 10% of infected that had symptoms. These were so called Super Spreaders. These people appeared to be highly contagious. A large percentage of those with the virus did not spread it to anyone, even though they were in regular contact with others. The scientists could not differentiate why some were  Super Spreaders and others not based on medical, physical, or commingling traits.

 

Therefore, for the test above, could only previous Super Spreaders be used in #1 and #3? Using most anyone else may giv

false negatives for the trial. 
 

Additionally, a problem in the Swiss study was that some people can into regular contact with even the Super Spreaders but never got the virus. Young, otherwise healthy, etc, seemed to play a role. So to give further guarantees, must the group in #2 be only older participants with some underlying vulnerable conditions? 
 

If all of those conditions are meet, what spread rate would be acceptable? If zero is the only acceptable answer, then you just need to stay home the rest of your lives. What if 1 Super Spreader, out of 100, gave it to 2 people in his bubble group? Too much risk for some I’m sure.

 

Any of you so concerned about these

possibilities want to go unvaccinated and volunteer for the test Group 2? Most here are retired, they may even pay you to participate! 😎

 

[Paulchili]

1 hour ago, LHT28 said:

No one  has  put in writing  that they have  had the vaccine & came in contact with a Covid positive person & NOT  gotten Covid

Actually by definition of 94 - 95% effectiveness it implies that 5 - 6 vaccinated people can/will get COVID but with less severe symptoms.

At least that is how I understand it.

[LHT28]

24 minutes ago, Paulchili said:

Actually by definition of 94 - 95% effectiveness it implies that 5 - 6 vaccinated people can/will get COVID but with less severe symptoms.

At least that is how I understand it.

Yes  but one of the  5 % could board the ship/plane  whatever & you have a situation  again

Just saying

[1985rz1]

2 hours ago, ORV said:

I'm no Dr, and don't play one of TV either...

Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express? 😁  (Maybe you don't remember those commercials.)

[Paulchili]

37 minutes ago, LHT28 said:

Yes  but one of the  5 % could board the ship/plane  whatever & you have a situation  again

Just saying

Exactly. In that case you have to hope you yourself are 1 of 95 and not another 1 of 5.

We won't be totally safe until we are like Melbourne where there has been no active case in over 1 month.

Good luck with that!😞

[Daniel A]

1 hour ago, Paulchili said:

Actually by definition of 94 - 95% effectiveness it implies that 5 - 6 vaccinated people can/will get COVID but with less severe symptoms.

At least that is how I understand it.

I think that the levels of effectiveness only reflect the results from the trials.  In real life scenarios, that number may go up or down significantly.  So I don't think those numbers mean that 5 or 6 will not achieve immunity.

[Paulchili]

4 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

In real life scenarios, that number may go up or down significantly.  So I don't think those numbers mean that 5 or 6 will not achieve immunity.

Are you saying that those numbers from the trial are meaningless?

What do they represent to you?

[Daniel A]

8 minutes ago, Paulchili said:

Are you saying that those numbers from the trial are meaningless?

What do they represent to you?

To me, they represent a statistical probability similar to polls.  Maybe I'm wrong I only played a hospital parking lot valet on TV. 😁

[Paulchili]

57 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

To me, they represent a statistical probability similar to polls.  Maybe I'm wrong I only played a hospital parking lot valet on TV. 😁

I guess time will tell what the true number will be. 🙂

[1985rz1]

1 hour ago, Daniel A said:

To me, they represent a statistical probability similar to polls.  Maybe I'm wrong I only played a hospital parking lot valet on TV. 😁

Polls are not a good analogy.  There, the sample may not be complete, people may lie. They are pseudo-scientific.

 

This is a scientific, the sample is controlled to match a population and the results verifiable.  A statistical probability means that across the board, 5 or 6 people per hundred in that population may not achieve immunity. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by 1985rz1

[pinotlover]

1 hour ago, 1985rz1 said:

Polls are not a good analogy.  There, the sample may not be complete, people may lie. They are pseudo-scientific.

 

This is a scientific, the sample is controlled to match a population and the results verifiable.  A statistical probability means that across the board, 5 or 6 people per hundred in that population may not achieve immunity. 

But we know from the studies that not achieving immunity does not equate to getting the disease. The study showed lots of people exposed to the virus but not getting it. Some even came into contact with Super Spreaders and weren’t infected. Mathematical odds get really low for almost all the population after the vaccinations. Those wanting certainty need to hunker for life. You might get struck by lightning on on clear day!

[1985rz1]

15 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

But we know from the studies that not achieving immunity does not equate to getting the disease. The study showed lots of people exposed to the virus but not getting it. Some even came into contact with Super Spreaders and weren’t infected. 

That wasn't the point.  I try to not conflate the the results of the effectiveness of the vaccine providing immunity with the probability of getting the virus if you are not vaccinated.  The latter requires much a more complex analysis, since many diverse factors come into play.  In my opinion,  the latter is a red herring and a diversion when evaluating the vaccine's effectiveness.

Edited December 8, 2020 by 1985rz1

[pinotlover]

2 minutes ago, 1985rz1 said:

That wasn't the point.  I try to not conflate the the results of the effectiveness of the vaccine with the probability of getting the virus if you are not vaccinated.  The latter requires much a more complex analysis, since many diverse factors come into play.  In my opinion,  the latter is a red herring and a diversion when evaluating the vaccines' effectiveness.

I disagree! The argument here, by some, is the odds of catching the disease from someone that has been vaccinated and who themselves will not get sick.

 

1. We don’t know

 

2. Mathematically the odds are so small I don’t understand the debate. I believe my posts show how narrow the study would have to be to find a case. 
 

If you’re looking for no risk, stop taking showers or baths.

[1985rz1]

3 minutes ago, pinotlover said:

I disagree! The argument here, by some, is the odds of catching the disease from someone that has been vaccinated and who themselves will not get sick.

 

1. We don’t know

 

2. Mathematically the odds are so small I don’t understand the debate. I believe my posts show how narrow the study would have to be to find a case. 
 

If you’re looking for no risk, stop taking showers or baths.

You may disagree, but you're wrong.

[LHT28]

3 hours ago, Paulchili said:

Exactly. In that case you have to hope you yourself are 1 of 95 and not another 1 of 5.

We won't be totally safe until we are like Melbourne where there has been no active case in over 1 month.

Good luck with that!😞

I agree

That is why we will still protect ourselves

Over 1900 cases in  our Province  today   this is becoming the average  per day

even in April I do not think it was more than 500 per day

Stay safe

[pinotlover]

11 minutes ago, 1985rz1 said:

You may disagree, but you're wrong.

I can accept being wrong, but explain your analysis on why I am. I gave you details not blunt statements.

[1985rz1]

Just now, pinotlover said:

I can accept being wrong, but explain your analysis on why I am. I gave you details not blunt statements.

I did and apparently you didn't understand them.  Your are conflating different issues.

[Daniel A]

13 hours ago, 1985rz1 said:

Polls are not a good analogy.  There, the sample may not be complete, people may lie. They are pseudo-scientific.

 

This is a scientific, the sample is controlled to match a population and the results verifiable.  A statistical probability means that across the board, 5 or 6 people per hundred in that population may not achieve immunity. 

I knew what I was saying when I compared the reported levels of effectiveness to polls.  Both use a statistical analysis to predict future outcomes.  Just because 95% of the sample achieved immunity, that doesn't mean that necessarily 5% of people will not.  It may well end up that 99% of the general population who get vaccinated will develop immunity.  The reported effectiveness level is really only certain for the results of the trials showing that the vaccine works, not necessarily certain for future results.  As you already acknowledged, the 5 or 6 percent may not achieve immunity, not won't achieve it.

Edited December 8, 2020 by Daniel A

[Tranquility Base]

Let's assume for the moment that vaccinations are required for longer, multicountry cruising to restart later next year.

 

How many different vaccines will be onboard....3, 4, 5 ?

Some may be 70% effective, others, 80%, others 95%.

 

Does anyone think that if Covid is still present in significant  numbers in various countries, that the onboard safety measures being proposed now  won't still be required ?

Edited December 8, 2020 by Tranquility Base

[1985rz1]

3 hours ago, Daniel A said:

I knew what I was saying when I compared the reported levels of effectiveness to polls.  Both use a statistical analysis to predict future outcomes.  Just because 95% of the sample achieved immunity, that doesn't mean that necessarily 5% of people will not.  It may well end up that 99% of the general population who get vaccinated will develop immunity.  The reported effectiveness level is really only certain for the results of the trials showing that the vaccine works, not necessarily certain for future results.  As you already acknowledged, the 5 or 6 percent may not achieve immunity, not won't achieve it.

Dan (if I  may be so bold)

 

I think we agree on the meaning of the 95% and 5%.

 

As for the comparison of polls, my gripe with polls is not the methodology, it's the sampling.  Statistical analyses are only as good as the data.  In conducting polls it's difficult to sample an accurate representation given the number of people who don't answer, hang up, and purposely misstate the truth.  And then there is the uncertainty associated with registered voter versus likely voter....and the very changing minds of the voters responding to the most recent developments.  Pollsters do try to account for these data flaws, but in my opinion, there is an inherent uncertainty in whether a given sample is truly representative.  That uncertainty is much more controlled controlled in scientific analyses (not that they are prefect) and those analyses should benefit from a much higher confidence in the results than should polls.

 

Maybe I'm too pessimistic about the ability of pollsters to account for the inherent data problems, but poor ability to predict the election results could be one indication of the flawed sampling in polls.  But I believe that scientific analyses are much more reliable in extrapolating it results to the general population than voter analyses because of the quality of the data.  Such a belief is the burden of some scientists 🙂.

Edited December 8, 2020 by 1985rz1

[Hawaiidan]

17 hours ago, pinotlover said:

I disagree! The argument here, by some, is the odds of catching the disease from someone that has been vaccinated and who themselves will not get sick.

 

1. We don’t know

 

2. Mathematically the odds are so small I don’t understand the debate. I believe my posts show how narrow the study would have to be to find a case. 
 

If you’re looking for no risk, stop taking showers or baths.

Hey I have been through, wars with people focused  on trying to kill me,  fley airplanes, climed mts and deep caves, worked again in hazardous  profession... had 3 health situations where the outcome was doubtful..... and still alive.....  When it is your time it is your time..... dont  hide under the bed clutching your pearls...... you biological clock is ticking and you can not set it back........