The Cruise and Travel Industry is in a very bad place!

[ldubs]

5 hours ago, chipmaster said:

I leave it to the readers ability to think and deduce, your concusion is interesting and says it all, LOL

 

What left me scratching my head is lack of clarity on what the x-axis label means.    "I know someone with covid symptoms and I wear a mask" is a lot different than "I know someone with covid symptoms and they wear a mask".    I would hate to think it isn't the latter.  

Edited October 29, 2020 by ldubs

[Aquahound]

On 10/28/2020 at 3:27 PM, Cruzaholic41 said:

That’s a pointless chart. It only says they know people, but it doesn’t take in to account where the people are with symptoms. I live in FL and always wear my mask in public, but all the people I know with symptoms are in other states (CA, NY, and OH). I don’t know anyone in FL with symptoms. 
 

And even so, it just says symptoms. That could mean anything. Again, pointless chart. 

 

4 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

What left me scratching my head is lack of clarity on what the x-axis label means.    "I know someone with covid symptoms and I wear a mask" is a lot different than "I know someone with covid symptoms and they wear a mask".    I would hate to think it isn't the latter.  

 

Agreed.  I live in the state of Washington.  I wear a mask.  I know 2 people with COVID in Ohio.  Where does that fall on that chart?  Plus, yes, it says symptoms, not confirmed COVID.  I had a bit of a sore throat when I got up this morning, so I guess I know someone in WA with symptoms....myself. 🙄  The chart is useless.   

[Cruzaholic41]

11 hours ago, chipmaster said:

I leave it to the readers ability to think and deduce, your concusion is interesting and says it all, LOL

In other words, the chart is crap. Thanks. 

[rkacruiser]

Charts and data reported in the media are interesting to me.  They are something that I consider when I decide to leave my "bubble" or not.  The data that means the most to me is the data provided by Ohio's Governor for our State.  The current data shows that Covid is more prevalent in the Buckeye State today than it was during the Winter and early Spring.  My "bubble" will remain intact.  

[ldubs]

21 hours ago, Aquahound said:

 

 

Agreed.  I live in the state of Washington.  I wear a mask.  I know 2 people with COVID in Ohio.  Where does that fall on that chart?  Plus, yes, it says symptoms, not confirmed COVID.  I had a bit of a sore throat when I got up this morning, so I guess I know someone in WA with symptoms....myself. 🙄  The chart is useless.   

 

Yeah, even though the chart shows what should be expected if masks provide a layer of protection, I think it leaves something to be desired.  If we had good data, I would hope to see a negative correlation between Covid % positives and use of masks.  I wonder if something like that exists.   

[ldubs]

12 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

Charts and data reported in the media are interesting to me.  They are something that I consider when I decide to leave my "bubble" or not.  The data that means the most to me is the data provided by Ohio's Governor for our State.  The current data shows that Covid is more prevalent in the Buckeye State today than it was during the Winter and early Spring.  My "bubble" will remain intact.  

 

Same here.  I really do look at the data for our state & counties as well as surrounding states/counties.  We and the parents of our grandchild decided it best to cancel our visit because data showed big case increases in the areas we would be traveling through.  Potentially bad for us and potentially bad for our grandchild if we happened to expose him.   Just one of those better safe than sorry decisions.   So, looks like we will have a Zoom B-day party for our grandchild instead.  

 

I guess it is kind of like checking the weather report and staying away from the "hot" areas.   

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, rkacruiser said:

Charts and data reported in the media are interesting to me.  They are something that I consider when I decide to leave my "bubble" or not.  The data that means the most to me is the data provided by Ohio's Governor for our State.  The current data shows that Covid is more prevalent in the Buckeye State today than it was during the Winter and early Spring.  My "bubble" will remain intact.  

Perhaps that tells us that all the lock downs and bubble staying have not been effective.  Are we in a better place then 6 months ago?

 

Hank

[ilikeanswers]

3 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps that tells us that all the lock downs and bubble staying have not been effective.  Are we in a better place then 6 months ago?

 

Hank

 

It could also suggest that the lockdowns in those areas were not administered properly, if there were lockdowns at all. That is the thing about stats you can make them mean anything you want if you lack the context😳

[navybankerteacher]

15 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps that tells us that all the lock downs and bubble staying have not been effective.  Are we in a better place then 6 months ago?

 

Hank

I hope you are not suggesting that social distancing, mask wearing, and - yes, even lockdowns - have not limited the spread - therefore reduced infections, thereby limited hospitalizations, and - of course - ultimately saved lives.

 

No - we are not necessarily in a better place than we were 6 months ago —- but we sure as hell would have been in a much worse place had those efforts (no matter how imperfect) not been made.

 

And, now that people have tired of making those efforts, we are seeing the results.

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I hope you are not suggesting that social distancing, mask wearing, and - yes, even lockdowns - have not limited the spread - therefore reduced infections, thereby limited hospitalizations, and - of course - ultimately saved lives.

 

No - we are not necessarily in a better place than we were 6 months ago —- but we sure as hell would have been in a much worse place had those efforts (no matter how imperfect) not been made.

 

And, now that people have tired of making those efforts, we are seeing the results.

Yes, the original prediction included there could be 2 million deaths IF ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WAS DONE.

[Markanddonna]

I communicate with people who live in France, Italy, and Poland where COVID has risen recently, just like in the USA. IMHO, the rise is inevitable when the population emerges from an intense lockdown. I also see going back to school as a huge reason for this rise, although I believe getting students back is essential in so many ways. For months, I personally knew no one who had COVID, but that changed in the last month. BUT, my friends  who had it were generally  fifty or less, it was like a nasty cold, AND was transferred to everyone in their own home. The one in Poland was a teacher who caught it at school and brought it home to her family. 

 

As an older person, it is my responsibility to not get too comfortable with going out in public. I was just reminded of that last night when a friend who were were around (with a mask) reported he had a fever. News like that gives one pause.

[Hlitner]

12 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I hope you are not suggesting that social distancing, mask wearing, and - yes, even lockdowns - have not limited the spread - therefore reduced infections, thereby limited hospitalizations, and - of course - ultimately saved lives.

 

No - we are not necessarily in a better place than we were 6 months ago —- but we sure as hell would have been in a much worse place had those efforts (no matter how imperfect) not been made.

 

And, now that people have tired of making those efforts, we are seeing the results.

What I am suggesting (as you put it) is that we still do not know what we do not know.  Have all the mitigation efforts been effective?  I have no idea and there is no way to be sure.  Perhaps the one comparison could be to look to Sweden where a lot less mitigation resulted in COVID rates comparable to countries that tried draconian measures.  But I see a lot of problems with using Sweden and a city like Helsinki as a comparison to places like NYC or Paris.   There is also a large study done in Denmark that looked at the effectiveness of masks.  But this study is currently not being published because the major medical publications (i.e. Lancet, JAMA, etc) have refused to publish the study.  Why?  The authors of the study have been careful to stay out of a controversy (they are legitimate researchers who simply want to be published and peer reviewed) so we are currently deprived of the results of this study.  However, most speculation is that the study likely shows that masks are not very effective...and it is currently politically incorrect to let the public see such a study.    The truth is that much of what is now being attributed to "science" is simply speculation by experts not supported by any "peer reviewed studies."   

 

There is also the question that is not being asked by the media or most in the public.  In the USA (and elsewhere) an awful lot of resources are being used for "contact tracing."  Contact tracing should give us some very good empirical data about where and when this disease spreads.  But try finding any publications that offer results of contact tracing.   My favorite example are buffets.  Is there a single study that shows that COVID has been spread by buffets?    What we do know is that it is easily spread by large groups of people being in close proximity for an extended period of time.  Beyond that it is difficult to find any decent data on spread.

 

Just yesterday I read about a small study done in Boston which showed that about 20% (give or take) of those who work in Supermarkets have tested positive for COVID (most of these folks had no symptoms and had continued to work).  But that same study is completely silent on whether a single customer contracted COVID as the result of those positive employees (this should be known by contact tracing).   So again, we miss an opportunity to get some meaningful information.

 

Hank 

 

 

[ilikeanswers]

24 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

There is also a large study done in Denmark that looked at the effectiveness of masks.  But this study is currently not being published because the major medical publications (i.e. Lancet, JAMA, etc) have refused to publish the study.  Why?  The authors of the study have been careful to stay out of a controversy (they are legitimate researchers who simply want to be published and peer reviewed) so we are currently deprived of the results of this study.  However, most speculation is that the study likely shows that masks are not very effective...and it is currently politically incorrect to let the public see such a study.    The truth is that much of what is now being attributed to "science" is simply speculation by experts not supported by any "peer reviewed studies."   

 

Could simply be that the study is not up to the standard that those publications expect. The ones you mentioned have a criteria that needs be met before they will publish anything. It is not the first time they have published research that has contradicted political thinking but they won't publish anything that doesn't have a rigorous scientific methodology so I would think it is more likely the study itself has some flaws that need to be fixed. 

[navybankerteacher]

We do know that areas like NY, NJ and CT which had very high rates of contagion in the early days had very low rates after adopting controls such as distancing and almost universal mask wearing. 

 

We do do know that those states have seen resurgence of infection rates as they eased those controls.

 

We do know that states which were slow (and remain slow) to apply such controls are now experiencing growing infection rates.

 

No - not proof positive, but a rather impelling argument for controls.

[FredT]

On 10/29/2020 at 4:07 PM, Roger88 said:

The hospitals are totally full with patients and dead people. Doctors cant catch up with the current rising number of patients. No matter what news are out there, you can go and visit a hospital to decide yourself. The situation is very complicated right now 

?????      I live just outside NYC.   A good friend is an emergency room doctor in Manhattan.  What you wrote above is what the MEDIA was touting all day/every day for months in NY.   The reality?  TOTAL hospital occupancy rates in the city were never above 50%....   And all the "emergency hospitals" set up never got above 10%.   His comments to me last week reflected this in the upper midwest, where the media is screaming "panic""   He has two medical school classmates who practice there and they both keep saying "WAAAY overblown".

 

Now to be honest, his repeated comments to me (and anyone that will listen) is that it is not the "mortality rate" of covid that is of concern, but the long term damage the virus does to many patients lungs and respiratory system.... (Which no one really talks about) 

[cruisemom42]

59 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

There is also a large study done in Denmark that looked at the effectiveness of masks.  But this study is currently not being published because the major medical publications (i.e. Lancet, JAMA, etc) have refused to publish the study.  Why?  The authors of the study have been careful to stay out of a controversy (they are legitimate researchers who simply want to be published and peer reviewed) so we are currently deprived of the results of this study.  However, most speculation is that the study likely shows that masks are not very effective...and it is currently politically incorrect to let the public see such a study.   

 

 

Sorry Hank -- I know you like to throw things out there -- often, I suspect, to get a response -- but I really have to take some offense at this statement, as the previous editor of an academic medical journal (nothing like the status of a Lancet or JAMA, of course...)

 

You are doing a real disservice to science by suggesting that a study would not be published due to political incorrectness. In fact, if it was a good, well-done study that contradicted current thinking, many journals would be salivating to publish it -- because that is what science is about. It is a continuing discussion of fact, data, and interpretation. To suggest otherwise is to further undermine society's faith in it. Most journals relish a good, DATA-DRIVEN controversy as it sparks further research on both sides of the question. (Not to mention drawing attention to the 'groundbreaking' research their journal publishes...)

 

No, I would have to think that, if anything, top journals are a little gun-shy about absolutely verifying data, research methodology and results after a couple of the embarrassing retractions earlier this year re: COVID research:

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions

 

I also did a little research on your specific claim. The only place where I can find that a refusal to publish (due to an "implied" bias against the results) is made, as far as I can tell, on a notoriously agenda driven site called "lockdownsceptics.org".  Even THEY aren't bold enough to claim any corroboration from the authors of the study about their assertions, because it no doubt doesn't exist. 

 

In another and MUCH more reliable source ("Nature"), in a news feature dated October 6, the author writes this:

 

"A research group in Denmark enrolled some 6,000 participants, asking half to use surgical face masks when going to a workplace. Although the study is completed, Thomas Benfield, a clinical researcher at the University of Copenhagen and one of the principal investigators on the trial, says that his team is not ready to share any results."

 

If that was the case on October 6, I can assure you that there has not been time to write up the results, submit them for peer-review, and to have had them denied by not just one but several journals!  (You cannot submit a single manuscript to multiple journals at the same time.). Think, man!

 

Sometimes, if we are too skeptical about everything, we lose the ability to act because we do not know who or what to believe -- so we believe nothing and do nothing. 

 

I would argue that while scientific journals and peer review are imperfect, they are a lot better, less biased, and more thorough at vetting false information than most other sources we have....

 

 

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Could simply be that the study is not up to the standard that those publications expect. The ones you mentioned have a criteria that needs be met before they will publish anything. It is not the first time they have published research that has contradicted political thinking but they won't publish anything that doesn't have a rigorous scientific methodology so I would think it is more likely the study itself has some flaws that need to be fixed. 

Perhaps and perhaps not.   Here is an article about the issue:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/top-scientific-journals-reject-controversial-danish-study-on-effectiveness-of-face-masks-against-coronavirus-report/ar-BB1aiLvF

 

I would suspect that once we have this COVID thing behind us there will be lots of studies showing all that things done wrong and some of what was done right.

 

Hank

 

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

We do know that areas like NY, NJ and CT which had very high rates of contagion in the early days had very low rates after adopting controls such as distancing and almost universal mask wearing. 

 

We do do know that those states have seen resurgence of infection rates as they eased those controls.

 

We do know that states which were slow (and remain slow) to apply such controls are now experiencing growing infection rates.

 

No - not proof positive, but a rather impelling argument for controls.

I do think that common sense enters into the equation.  We could likely slow down the transmission of flu (which still kills 10s of thousands every year), common cold (which can lead to pneumonia), and many other diseases by simply staying home and social distancing when we go out and about.  But the price in terms of mental health, failure to seek treatment for other issues, and the economy would be great.   My fear is that once a so-called free society gives up much of their freedom because we willingly accept government controls, what is to stop the government from constantly ratcheting up "controls" for just about any reason and simply saying "it is for our own good."   I spent many years in government and wrote hundreds of regulations that impacted healthcare.  In all that time I never rescinded anything.  Many folks in government love to implement new regulations because it justified their job and also gives them a feeling of power.  So lets consider a government official who now decides it is a good idea to close all bars at 6pm.  or perhaps there will now be a "control" that says from Sept to April everyone over the age of 5 minutes old must wear a mask. 

 

Do I trust our government?   Because i spent over 35 years working in government I have very little trust in many government decisions/regulations.   When folks like me can dictate policy to folks like you we are both in a lot of trouble :).  Just think of it.  As one time I was able to make decisions on how many beds could be in a hospital, which facilities could have a CT Scanner or MRI, etc.  That is very scary!   When Governor Cuomo was doing his daily dog and pony show about COVID, he constantly expressed his concern about the shortage of ICU beds in New York.  What he did not say is that New York has long had a government program ("Certificate of Need") that strictly controlled the number of allowed ICU beds.  So the perceived shortage of those beds was partially caused by the very person who whined that there was a shortage.  In fact, nearly all the shortages he complained about (on a daily basis) were the result of government policies championed by him (and his predecessors).

 

Hank

 

Hank

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps that tells us that all the lock downs and bubble staying have not been effective.  Are we in a better place then 6 months ago?

 

Hank

 

It's funny.  Follow the science, we are told.  And it was considered outrageous when we got out of the WHO, as that was a sign we weren't following the science, i.e., the pronouncements of WHO.  Yet the science, as currently propounded by WHO, has stated that nations should NOT lock down.  And everyone is ignoring the science and locking down.


 

Edited October 31, 2020 by Toofarfromthesea

[Toofarfromthesea]

15 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I hope you are not suggesting that social distancing, mask wearing, and - yes, even lockdowns - have not limited the spread - therefore reduced infections, thereby limited hospitalizations, and - of course - ultimately saved lives.

 

No - we are not necessarily in a better place than we were 6 months ago —- but we sure as hell would have been in a much worse place had those efforts (no matter how imperfect) not been made.

 

And, now that people have tired of making those efforts, we are seeing the results.

 

No nation had tighter restrictions and strict enforcement than Peru.  Which has one of the worst records on covid.

[Toofarfromthesea]

2 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Could simply be that the study is not up to the standard that those publications expect. The ones you mentioned have a criteria that needs be met before they will publish anything. It is not the first time they have published research that has contradicted political thinking but they won't publish anything that doesn't have a rigorous scientific methodology so I would think it is more likely the study itself has some flaws that need to be fixed. 

 

And yet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, The Lancet, had no trouble publishing a study based on fake data - which they subsequently had to retract.  So I am less than impressed by their "standards".  The mask study was done by reputable researchers.  It's not like it was found on an abandoned laptop.

[iancal]

12 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

No nation had tighter restrictions and strict enforcement than Peru.  Which has one of the worst records on covid.

 

Have you looked at Panama's restrictions/enforcements and their results???

[mnocket]

The bottom line seems to be that "the science" on Covid continues to be in a state of flux.  The truth is that the "science" on Covid will not be settled until years after the pandemic wanes. What we think we know today re: masks, shutdowns, etc., is subject to revision - that's the scientific method.  Today's scientific guidance is  the best we have at the moment, but may eventually prove to be incorrect.  That's one reason why I think it's so important that we have different approaches toward Covid.  It gives us better, diverse data which science will eventually digest to improve our understanding of what approaches work best for society.  

 

Here's a thought provoking chart. 

[Toofarfromthesea]

5 hours ago, iancal said:

 

Have you looked at Panama's restrictions/enforcements and their results???

 

I hadn't, but now I have.  You are going to have to explicate, because I don't get your point.

[sfaaa]

5 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

No nation had tighter restrictions and strict enforcement than Peru.  Which has one of the worst records on covid.

Could it be that their medical system and health facilities are sub par?