CDC Order

[c-boy]

2 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

We did that, too, from end of Aug to early Sep. Had a wonderful time, and we were treated wonderfully by the staff at the resort. I wanna go back already!

I'm looking into Cancun trip, Did ya have to wear mask's and distance ?

[DCGuy64]

21 minutes ago, c-boy said:

I'm looking into Cancun trip, Did ya have to wear mask's and distance ?

We had to wear masks on the plane, and when entering the resort's restaurants, as well as when we went into town by taxi. And in the airport, of course. At the resort, if you were on the beach or at the pool, no masks required by guests (staff always wore them). Social distancing? Sort of. In the resort's specialty restaurants, it was clear they spaced the tables out pretty well. We were never closer than 6-8' from other people. And no self-service for the buffet or beverages, everything was served by waiters. But in the pool, no social distancing. We got a couple's massage on the beach and we all wore masks for that, too. It was an awesome trip, I chose the resort predominantly because it had great, recent reviews about the excellent job they did sanitizing everything. That was our #1 priority. The staff was superb, really fun and very friendly. You should definitely consider going.

[DCGuy64]

52 minutes ago, nocl said:

Don't have much time to respond this morning, but will in depth this evening from my hotel.

 

First of all the articles I read, which was quite a few did not assign blame in the Diamond situation. Except for questioning why Princess did not react when their Hong Kong port agent reported that a passenger that had gotten off tested positive. Princess did get mentioned a lot, but I do believe that using the full name of the ship, Diamond Princess is appropriate. Just as it was with Ruby Princess and Grand Princess.

 

There are a number of research papers on the Diamond Princess. They are consistent in that Analysis shows that among the passengers the infections occurred prior to quarantine, with the exception of passengers traveling in the same cabin with previously infected passengers. The crew was a different story with a mix of infections occurring both before and after quarantine. I guess they could have followed the Ruby model and let infected passengers get off and be the cause of a high percentage of all Australian cases at the time.

 

Again the reporting pretty much presented the facts. but unfortunately those facts were not favorable to the cruise lines. I guess the other option would have been not to cover the story.

 

The cruiselines did not exactly demonstrate the ability to control Covid infections on ships among the crew even after the passengers had gotten off.

 

As far as the petri dish comments. Most of the were opinions of individuals, that when reported were presented as such in the stories. Of course at the time, early in the outbreak, the cruise ship cases accounted for a majority of the cases in Australia and Japan and 15%  of the cases in the US.

 

Maybe you should post some links to articles that you think are examples of deceptive reporting. Then we can see and discuss the merits of the articles you pick as being examples of deceptive reporting.

 

I don't have time to find the articles, they were published months ago in the throes of the first wave of COVID. I work from home and don't really have time to research it. I just know that on here and in other places, the cruise lines were blamed for things that weren't their fault. Also, what the media doesn't say is as telling as what they do. MSC has taken more than 16,000 passengers since restarting in Europe and has done so safely. The mainstream media hasn't said a peep. I guess they only cover the cruise industry when there's an outbreak. "Quelle surprise."

[ukbecky]

1 hour ago, c-boy said:

I'm looking into Cancun trip, Did ya have to wear mask's and distance ?

 

We had to fill out a health questionnaire to fly into Mexico, similar to the one the cruiselines had us do in the past. 

 

Masks in public areas, not at the pool or the beach, just walking around. 

 

Number of tables was pared down in the restaurants, or blocked off. Mask off when eating or drinking.

 

Limits on # in elevators, and people generally kept their distance, although no one was actively enforcing that.

 

Our bags were 'treated'(whatever that means) before being delivered to our rooms. 

 

There were many many hand sanitizer stations all over, and we were asked to use them before entering any place.

 

Ours had a buffet with individually wrapped/packed cold items and condiments. Everything else was served by gloved/masked staff.

 

 

They were at 60% capacity later in the week, so it got quite crowded/busy.

And we're still alive to tell the tale.

I don't see why cruising can't start with similar precautions for those who want to go.

 

 

[nocl]

6 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

 

I don't have time to find the articles, they were published months ago in the throes of the first wave of COVID. I work from home and don't really have time to research it. I just know that on here and in other places, the cruise lines were blamed for things that weren't their fault. Also, what the media doesn't say is as telling as what they do. MSC has taken more than 16,000 passengers since restarting in Europe and has done so safely. The mainstream media hasn't said a peep. I guess they only cover the cruise industry when there's an outbreak. "Quelle surprise."

actually there have been articles about cruising restarted. even though in most cases things operating normally are not considered news.

 

by the way many of the petri dish quotes came from cruisers that were interviewed after getting off of several cruise ships with issues at the start of the outbreak.

[Steelers36]

12 hours ago, DCGuy64 said:

Also, what the media doesn't say is as telling as what they do. MSC has taken more than 16,000 passengers since restarting in Europe and has done so safely. The mainstream media hasn't said a peep. I guess they only cover the cruise industry when there's an outbreak. "Quelle surprise."

That is illustration of why many have been called the "drive-by" media.  They just get the salacious surface stuff quickly and don't bother to dig into the real facts. 

 

[Steelers36]

5 hours ago, nocl said:

by the way many of the petri dish quotes came from cruisers that were interviewed after getting off of several cruise ships with issues at the start of the outbreak.

And aren't we cruisers the medical experts!

[ontheweb]

14 hours ago, nocl said:

actually there have been articles about cruising restarted. even though in most cases things operating normally are not considered news.

 

by the way many of the petri dish quotes came from cruisers that were interviewed after getting off of several cruise ships with issues at the start of the outbreak.

I thought the origin of that quotation was from Dr. Fauci.

[DCGuy64]

8 hours ago, Steelers36 said:

That is illustration of why many have been called the "drive-by" media.  They just get the salacious surface stuff quickly and don't bother to dig into the real facts. 

 

Yes, and the media tends to take sides, too. They will howl when someone makes an optimistic prediction "without evidence," but then lets pessimists hold forth without evidence, but they don't mention the "lack of evidence" part. Mmm-hmm.

I got tired of the negativity and stopped watching CNN for the most part. It wasn't just that they reported negative news, they reported ONLY negative news. They'd focus on the overworked hospital staff, the lack of PPE, the rising death tolls, etc. They would never talk about the recovery rate, the places where makeshift hospitals were set up (like in Washington State) and then went unused because there was no need for them, or the Navy medical ship stationed off New York City that was supposed to relieve NYC hospitals overburdened with COVID patients, that left the harbor earlier than anticipated because things improved. I found that BBC News, in particular, did a much more thorough and balanced job of presenting all sides. It's just embarrassing that we in the public can't trust our own media to be fair in its coverage, but there we are.

[DCGuy64]

14 hours ago, nocl said:

actually there have been articles about cruising restarted. even though in most cases things operating normally are not considered news.

 

by the way many of the petri dish quotes came from cruisers that were interviewed after getting off of several cruise ships with issues at the start of the outbreak.

In my experience, the media makes the awful cases front and center, and buries the restarts. Every media outlet that bothers to cover the cruise industry will report an outbreak on the ship, but you have to go to cruise-specific websites to see when cruising resumes. Just once, I'd love to see a major media outlet say this: "after months of being idled due to COVID, the cruise industry is back! Today, the MSC Grandiosa became the first large passenger ship to cruise in Europe since COVID began. This is good news for an industry hit hard by the virus. What an encouraging sign to see 1,000s of passengers at sea again." Or even report that multiple cruises have now taken place and there have been no outbreaks. Nah, the media only wants to scare people.....

 

Part of why I hate the "floating petri dish" comments being parroted without any pushback is that in addition to being untrue, they become a self-fulfilling prophecy: cruisers hear this and cancel their upcoming cruises, which costs the industry money, which then cancels more cruises, which leads to falling stock prices and layoffs, and suddenly people are worried about multiple bankruptcies. It's like spreading false rumors about a bank's insolvency and then being surprised when there's a run on the bank and it closes.

[stevenr597]

On 10/8/2020 at 3:20 AM, SinbadThePorter said:

 

Knowledge of coronavirus and its effects have changed more in the past 6 months than in the last 30 years.

 

Do you really expect the CDC to be giving out the exact same advice that they gave out 6 months ago?

Actually the answer is yes..  The CDC is they don't know the answer, should simply say, "I do not know, we are conducting research."  If they wish to give their opinion, without hard scientific data, they should say so.  If they make a mistake and have to change they should not this.

I get tired of Mr. Fauci making pronunciations and statements on virtually every news program when he has little or not data to back it up.  

[Potstech]

37 minutes ago, richsea said:

I was going to say the same thing. The CDC tries to give advice based on science; other sources just blurt things out on a whim.

So saying masks are more important than a vaccine is based on what science?  And what science are they using because there seems to be no set agreement on what an effective treatment is within the medical community. Look at the case of the past 3 drug treatment that the CDC pushed then they said it was not effective. One day they say wear masks then the next week they say they are ineffective and then they say wear masks. One month it is lock down then the next is that they are ineffective. So what science are they using?

[nocl]

40 minutes ago, Potstech said:

So saying masks are more important than a vaccine is based on what science?  And what science are they using because there seems to be no set agreement on what an effective treatment is within the medical community. Look at the case of the past 3 drug treatment that the CDC pushed then they said it was not effective. One day they say wear masks then the next week they say they are ineffective and then they say wear masks. One month it is lock down then the next is that they are ineffective. So what science are they using?

 

Answering the questions one at a time

 

So saying masks are more important than a vaccine is based on what science? 

 

The science that says that both masks and vaccines are merely tools to accomplish one goal to reduce the spread of COVID to the point that new cases are rare.

 

There several studies out there that talk about the effectiveness of masks and social distancing. Masks are available and can be worn by almost everyone now.  If everyone were to do that, wear masks and social distance, there are estimates that the impact on the spread of COVID would be more effective than a vaccine, that is taken by less than 50% of the population (which is what is currently estimated), especially if it is just meets minimal efficacy.  Also keep in mind that once the vaccine is out the current clinical trials are only looking at moderate and severe symptoms.  It is not looking at asymptomatic cases.  So it is possible that a vaccine, even if it has a high efficacy, might only prevent symptoms, and not prevent the potential for someone to still carry and pass on COVID.  

 

Once the vaccine is out the use of masks and social distancing will still be important. Until the number of cases drop significantly and the risk of new infection is very low. 

 

And what science are they using because there seems to be no set agreement on what an effective treatment is within the medical community Look at the case of the past 3 drug treatment that the CDC pushed then they said it was not effective.

 

First of the the CDC has not pushed any drug treatments.  There web site still says and has said since April

 

There are no drugs or other therapeutics presently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent or treat COVID-19. Current clinical management includes infection prevention and control measures and supportive care, including supplemental oxygen and mechanical ventilatory support when indicated.

 

When it comes to treatment one must distinguish between 1. The regulatory authorities, medical practice and research.  The media is often confusing the three in what is taking place.  The regulatory authorities will not "push" a treatment until certain hurdles are met.  Now you appear to be confusing the CDC with the FDA and are using the term "pushing" to describe, rather inaccurately, the approval of an emergency use authorization.  The FDA will issue a EUA when it considers that the potential for benefit is greater than the potential for risk. 

 

So if we look at the EUAs that the agency have issued.  The first, hydroxychloroquine, was already an approved drug with a known safety profile in the US. At the time the EUA was approved there was no other treatments available and there was some data out of France that there might be benefit, it was also already being used.  The only difference the EUA would have had was to impact the potential for prior auth requirements for drug reimbursement.  That EUA was reversed once more data became available and other treatments investigated.  The second was for convalescent plasma.  Which is a treatment that has been used in other illnesses and which is considered to be very low risk.  The trials for convalescent plasma is still on going, but at the time the EUA was approved there were indications of some benefit.  The third was for Remdesivir use in certain hospitialized patients. The Remdesivir trials results would indicate that it does have some benefit and is likely to get approval for the indication.  So it seems that only only treatment EUA was issued for a drug later considered to be ineffective.

 

As far as effective treatments if you asks practicing physicians there has been considerable progress in how patients are treated.  The use of corticosteroids for example has had considerable benefits in lowering the mortality rate.  So the state of developing effective treatment protocols has made substantial progress. And will continue to do so has more experience is gained with this illness.

 

You seem to be ignoring the factor of time and the evolution of science during the outbreak.  The knowledge of COVID-19 and how it spreads has evolved tremendously so a recommendation made during the first month or two during the outbreak is clearly not relevant 6 months into the outbreak because the knowledge of the illness has evolved and the recommendations has changed.  That is how science works, one applies the best knowledge that they have, then as more knowledge is gained the procedures and practices will change and evolve based upon both the understanding of the illness, as well as the effectiveness of the methods.  This illness has not even existed for a year, there are many effects still not well understood (for example most people focus on mortality, but the long term impacts of secondary effects such as neurological symptoms that continue on months are the other symptoms are gone may actual be a greater cost).

 

So to answer your last question that is the science that they are using and will continue to use, as long as politics can be kept out.

 

 

[Potstech]

Yes they did highly recommend the three drug treatment for the virus. So you agree that science and time affects how the CDC releases information.  That means they will put out differing information depending on which scientific group gets their ear on any particular week.

So what science says masks ARE MORE IMPORTANT than vaccines as Dr Redfield has stated.  I agree both are effective preventatives.

[ontheweb]

11 minutes ago, Potstech said:

Yes they did highly recommend the three drug treatment for the virus. So you agree that science and time affects how the CDC releases information.  That means they will put out differing information depending on which scientific group gets their ear on any particular week.

So what science says masks ARE MORE IMPORTANT than vaccines as Dr Redfield has stated.  I agree both are effective preventatives.

Masks are more important right now because they exist and are easy to use. There is no approved vaccine at the moment, though hopefully an effective and safe one will be approved and available soon. But even after that, it will take time for the vaccine to be in widespread use while the use of masks will still be important.

[cruzsnooze]

1 hour ago, nocl said:

 

 

 

So to answer your last question that is the science that they are using and will continue to use, as long as politics can be kept out.

 

 

You can't argue with someone who won't listen no matter how much evidence you have. It's become partisan to the disadvantage of the country. I will always trust Dr. Fauci, a life long epidemiologist whose ego doesn't get in the way of updating or revising his recommendations based on science and data and results.

Edited October 12, 2020 by cruzsnooze

[nocl]

43 minutes ago, Potstech said:

Yes they did highly recommend the three drug treatment for the virus. So you agree that science and time affects how the CDC releases information.  That means they will put out differing information depending on which scientific group gets their ear on any particular week.

So what science says masks ARE MORE IMPORTANT than vaccines as Dr Redfield has stated.  I agree both are effective preventatives.

No I certainly do not agree with your rather inane characterization of what I stated.

 

Recommendations change as the knowledge of the illness change.

 

 

Considering 1. that the vaccine only benefits those that will take it.  2. the virus might mutate and render the vaccine useless 3. the vaccine might not prevent infection, only prevent symptoms from developing  

 than yes masks very likely can be more important that the vaccine, if everyone would wear them.  A vaccine by itself does not eliminate the need to wear masks.  On the other hand several countries have demonstrated the ability to limit the virus effectively by using masks and social distancing without a vaccine being available.

 

Based upon on that masks could be considered to be more important

 

[Cruise-Crazzy]

The CDC is not making anyone cruise.  If you do not believe cruising is safe do not cruise.

[stevenr597]

18 hours ago, cruzsnooze said:

You can't argue with someone who won't listen no matter how much evidence you have. It's become partisan to the disadvantage of the country. I will always trust Dr. Fauci, a life long epidemiologist whose ego doesn't get in the way of updating or revising his recommendations based on science and data and results.

Have to take exception in respect to your comments about Dr. Fauci.  Unfortunately with both the H1N1 Influenza Epidemic (he was very lucky) and the current Coronovirus Pandemic (his luck ran out), Dr. Fauci has been wrong many times.  Although he states that he is "Evidence Based" many of his statements are based on his opinions, not facts.  In respect to his ego, when he admits that he was wrong he blames it not on himself, but on other individuals.

The sad truth is that if Dr. Fauci had responded in a quicker fashion to the events in China, thousands of lives might have been saved.   

[mnocket]

Since everyone seems to have something to say about masks, here's something I just learned.......

 

A recent study established that cloth masks require washing in hot water (not hand washing) after each use in order to be effective.  Failure to do so may actually result in wearing the mask to be more dangerous than no mask at all. 

 

(source in plain english: https://www.foxnews.com/health/washing-cloth-coronavirus-face-mask-after-wearing-study)

(source in scientific lingo: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045.full?ijkey=nNj9mA8BaDWWxYE&keytype=ref)

 

This was news to me as I keep a cloth mask in my car to wear when I venture from home.  I sure don't wash it after every use.

 

The more I learn, the more convinced I am that there is a HUGE gap between the theoretical (i.e. scientific) effectiveness of masks and the practical effectiveness. Don't get me wrong - I wear a mask and think others should too.  However, I wouldn't be surprised that when this pandemic has passed and the post-mortem analysis is complete, we find that social distancing far exceeded shutdowns and mask mandates in terms of actual impact in the spread of  the virus.  Time will tell. 

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, mnocket said:

A recent study established that cloth masks require washing in hot water (not hand washing) after each use in order to be effective.  Failure to do so may actually result in wearing the mask to be more dangerous than no mask at all. 

 

 

That's why my first choice are the 3-layer disposable masks. Light-weight advanced materials technology. Disposable. Best combination of effective and breath-ability. See chart below.

 

That said, polypropylene masks are useful in wet conditions. For large people, cotton masks come in a larger choice of sizes.

 

You don't have to wash the reusable masks after every use. I rotate them. Hanging them up in the sun for three days to eliminate virus. You will have to wash them regularly to eliminate the bacteria.

 

 

[nocl]

2 hours ago, mnocket said:

Since everyone seems to have something to say about masks, here's something I just learned.......

 

A recent study established that cloth masks require washing in hot water (not hand washing) after each use in order to be effective.  Failure to do so may actually result in wearing the mask to be more dangerous than no mask at all. 

 

(source in plain english: https://www.foxnews.com/health/washing-cloth-coronavirus-face-mask-after-wearing-study)

(source in scientific lingo: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/9/e042045.full?ijkey=nNj9mA8BaDWWxYE&keytype=ref)

 

This was news to me as I keep a cloth mask in my car to wear when I venture from home.  I sure don't wash it after every use.

 

The more I learn, the more convinced I am that there is a HUGE gap between the theoretical (i.e. scientific) effectiveness of masks and the practical effectiveness. Don't get me wrong - I wear a mask and think others should too.  However, I wouldn't be surprised that when this pandemic has passed and the post-mortem analysis is complete, we find that social distancing far exceeded shutdowns and mask mandates in terms of actual impact in the spread of  the virus.  Time will tell. 

Keep in mind the context of the study

 

The study at the time found that two-layered cotton cloth masks “were not as effective as surgical masks in a hospital setting 

 

More specifically, the so-called “washing data” was self-reported by health care workers in Vietnam in 2011 who at the time worked in “high-risk wards in a health care setting,”

 

So you are talking about a study concerning cloth masks used in a high virus setting.  To be honest I would not be using cloth masks in that setting at all in the first place.

 

If you are wearing a cloth mask in a high virus setting or an area that is likely to have virus present such as an indoor location with lots of people around then certainly you should wash the mask after words.  Of course most of us are not wearing our masks in such settings.  Usually in areas with occasional contact with others and pretty low chance of encountering someone with the virus.  As such the odds of the mask getting contaminated day to day is pretty low.

 

If you have been in an area where you think there was potential exposure then wash your mask as soon as possible.  But just going around to the grocery store or other low contact activities probably not needed day to day.  

[nocl]

57 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

That's why my first choice are the 3-layer disposable masks. Light-weight advanced materials technology. Disposable. Best combination of effective and breath-ability. See chart below.

 

That said, polypropylene masks are useful in wet conditions. For large people, cotton masks come in a larger choice of sizes.

 

You don't have to wash the reusable masks after every use. I rotate them. Hanging them up in the sun for three days to eliminate virus. You will have to wash them regularly to eliminate the bacteria.

 

 

Personally I put my disposable in a small cabinet with a small unit that vaporizes hydrogen peroxide for a few hours. Can process 15 masks at a time. Fairly easy to build. Pretty much overkill, but it was fun building. Pretty much the same method that Battelle developed for hospitals.

[stevenr597]

21 minutes ago, cruzsnooze said:

Fox news and you believe it? We all know whose agenda they tout and it's political not scientific or medical. 

...and people can say that about MSNBC or CNN. 

[mnocket]

1 hour ago, cruzsnooze said:

Fox news and you believe it? We all know whose agenda they tout and it's political not scientific or medical. 

Did you notice that I also posted a link to the scientific study?