Cruise without a vaccine

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, slidergirl said:

When it comes to getting the vaccine, I sure wish this question could be asked and verified: "Did you wear a mask, social distance and practice good hand sanitation?"  If yes, you get on the list, if no, you are put on the bottom of the "wait list."  Never happen, but I sure wish it were possible.  No vaccine, no cruise.  

 

I wouldn't wish COVID on anyone.  

Even if the questions you posed could be asked, it would be all too easy for the person to lie. How could you possibly for instance verify how someone washed their hands?

[Toofarfromthesea]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Slidergirl already answered much better than I would be able to answer.

 

No, actually she didn't, since nothing she said in any way challenged the actual studies.  Anecdotal evedence NEVER trumps actual studies.  But hey, SCIENCE!!!

[broberts]

11 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

You are talking about anecdotal stories vs. actual studies.  I.E., gossip vs. science.

 

Ten months is not enough time to have any definitive study of long term effects, re-infectionn rates, etc. 

[JRG]

On 11/5/2020 at 8:19 AM, Hlitner said:

So once you consider that the odds favor getting some COVID cases on a ship you then need to consider that mass market ships make true social distancing nearly impossible.  So with some non symptomatic cases on a ship it is inevitable that there will be spread and eventual COVID problems.  The CDC needs to wrestle with all these issues, but without a safe/effective vaccine there are apparently no good answers to how to make a cruise safe from COVID.

 

Underlining is mine.  

 

There is perhaps one good answer to safe cruising in the near term.  

 

The University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine has been conducting experimental canine scent training to detect  "asymptomatic carriers of Covid-19"

 

The airport at Helsinki, Finland is reporting levels of success and my understanding is that elsewhere in the world similar successes are being reported.

 

Can you envision how well this would work to have canines detecting asymptomatic passengers at airports, transportation centers and cruise terminals.

 

We know that dogs are being used to detect changes in blood sugar level,   it makes sense to use dogs to detect Covid-19 carriers before they get on the ship. 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by JRG
typo

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

No, actually she didn't, since nothing she said in any way challenged the actual studies.  Anecdotal evedence NEVER trumps actual studies.  But hey, SCIENCE!!!

So, if she reads the studies, her maladies will magically disappear?

[clo]

1 hour ago, KnowTheScore said:

The FACTS remain that:

 

This is a disease which over 99% of people survive

Of which 86% of cases have no symptoms at all

Of which a further proportion only have mild symptoms requiring no treatment or hospitalisation

Of which only a tiny minority suffer serious complications, the vast majority (not all) of which are older member of society with underlying health probems

Of which an even tinier minority actually die

Please provide reputable and verifiable citations to support all these claims.

[SelectSys]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

No, actually she didn't, since nothing she said in any way challenged the actual studies.  Anecdotal evedence NEVER trumps actual studies.  But hey, SCIENCE!!!

 

I was going to make this point as well.  Anecdotal information is just that.  Often times I state that in my posts here as being my experience or simply anecdotal.

 

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

So, if she reads the studies, her maladies will magically disappear?

 

Of course not.  I feel for anyone that has a bad outcome.  The point is that there is a distribution of results that occur in large populations that describe the likelihood of results in general rather than a specific case.  Are we all the same height?  Do we weigh the same?  Live the same number of years?  Of course not, but that doesn't mean we can't determine if a vaccine is effective or not based on a distribution of results.  Did Moderna say 94.5% effective or 100% effective.  

 

Here is something from "Science Buddies" to help understand or refresh yourself with the steps associated with experimentation and drawing conclusions from data -

https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/science-fair/steps-of-the-scientific-method

 

Often times people use emotion when the data doesn't support their conclusion.   Look here in CA where our schools are closed and the kids neither get infected nor have bad outcomes.  I would say decisions are be based on emotions and politics rather than the data.

 

https://covid19.ca.gov/state-dashboard/

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by SelectSys

[navybankerteacher]

14 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

You are talking about anecdotal stories vs. actual studies.  I.E., gossip vs. science.

If you would pause for just a moment to think, you would realize that, in dealing with previously non-experienced questions, “science” begins with observed cases - in short “anecdotes”.

 

 Sure, as time goes on “science” builds its data base, and collected observed data comes to trump individual cases — but these are still early days:  there is insufficient studied data at this point to call what we have “science”.

 

Anecdotal evidence is not everything by any means, but it is better than nothing.

[SelectSys]

18 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

.. but these are still early days:  there is insufficient studied data at this point to call what we have “science”.

 

Anecdotal evidence is not everything by any means, but it is better than nothing.

 

Are you suggesting that the studies by Pfizer and Moderna aren't collecting enough data from 40,000+ samples?   Are they not doing "science?"

 

 I would respectfully disagree with your point regarding anecdotal evidence.  Sometimes anecdotal evidence can be worse than no evidence.

 

Below should provide enough information as to the pitfalls of depending on anecdotal evidence. 

 

https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/anecdotal-evidence/

Making decisions based on anecdotal evidence might not always be harmful. For example, if you ask a friend for a restaurant recommendation, the risk is low, especially if you know his/her tastes. However, if you’re making important decisions about things like finances, healthcare, and fitness, don’t base them anecdotal evidence. Look at scientific data and expert analysis even though they’re not as flashy as emotionally charged stories presented by relatable people!

 

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AnecdotalFallacy

"Anecdotal Evidence is extremely prone to Confirmation Bias; when it doesn't fit one's viewpoint, it can be very easily dismissed as this fallacy. If it does fit one's viewpoint, it's a perfect example of that viewpoint applying to real people in the real world."

 

Many more exist about the pitfalls of decision making with anecdotal evidence.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/anecdotal.html

https://fallacyinlogic.com/anecdotal-fallacy-definition-and-examples/#:~:text=The anecdotal fallacy is a,a lack of argumentation skills.

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by SelectSys

[clo]

10 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 I would respectfully disagree with your point regarding anecdotal evidence.  Sometimes anecdotal evidence can be worse than no evidence.

 

IMO you're discussing something different than NBT is. You seem to have gotten rather proprietary here. Dug in your heels perhaps. Just MO.

[SelectSys]

Just now, clo said:

IMO you're discussing something different than NBT is. You seem to have gotten rather proprietary here. Dug in your heels perhaps. Just MO.

 

Fine, I don't see your point but that is OK.  NBT said anecdotal evidence is better than nothing and I simply disagreed while providing some references to back up my argument.  

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 

Fine, I don't see your point but that is OK.  NBT said anecdotal evidence is better than nothing and I simply disagreed while providing some references to back up my argument.  

I do not want to pursue a discussion with someone who seriously believes that zero evidence is better than anecdotal evidence.

[UnorigionalName]

16 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

You are talking about anecdotal stories vs. actual studies.  I.E., gossip vs. science.

??? It's been all over the science, it's not really a debated thing anymore.

 

To, Kelvin Kai-Wang, et al. "COVID-19 re-infection by a phylogenetically distinct SARS-coronavirus-2 strain confirmed by whole genome sequencing." Clinical infectious diseases (2020).

 

Van Elslande, Jan, et al. "Symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 reinfection by a phylogenetically distinct strain." Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (2020).

 

Prado-Vivar, Belen, et al. "COVID-19 Re-Infection by a Phylogenetically Distinct SARS-CoV-2 Variant, First Confirmed Event in South America." First Confirmed Event in South America.(September 3, 2020) (2020).

 

Lechien, Jerome R., et al. "COVID-19 Reinfection and Second Episodes of Olfactory and Gustatory Dysfunctions: Report of First Cases." Ear, Nose & Throat Journal (2020): 0145561320970105.

 

Selvaraj, Vijairam, Karl Herman, and Kwame Dapaah-Afriyie. "Severe, Symptomatic Reinfection in a Patient with COVID-19." Rhode Island Medical Journal (2013) 103.10 (2020): 24-26.

 

edit: don't want to spend time to pull up the papers, but waning immunity is also a pretty accepted thing.  The question is mostly when. There's not enough data yet, and there is definitely a glass-half full camp and glass-half empty camp.

 

Edited November 20, 2020 by UnorigionalName

[slidergirl]

I was just in a seminar with Dr. Vin Gupta (Survivor Corps does many seminars on COVID with renowned people, including Dr. Fauci).  He was saying there is no definitive time for immunity once you had COVID.  He mentioned a documented case in Nevada where a person was re-infected after 9 weeks.  

 

I'm going to leave this one.  I'm just way too sensitive to the subject and people thinking that too many of us are just lying about what is happening to us. 

[SelectSys]

52 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

I do not want to pursue a discussion with someone who seriously believes that zero evidence is better than anecdotal evidence.

 

No worries.  Feel free to ignore me if you feel my posts are not well reasoned.  

 

For anyone else who cares - As I said above, anecdotal information can lead to bad results.  Remember, data is not evidence/information.  Why are we going through vaccine trials if we didn't need sufficient samples to draw conclusions?   

 

https://www.oxford-review.com/data-v-evidence/

 

[clo]

54 minutes ago, UnorigionalName said:

There's not enough data yet

And IMneverHO, that's exactly why anecdotes will have to do for now.

[clo]

45 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

I was just in a seminar with Dr. Vin Gupta (Survivor Corps does many seminars on COVID with renowned people, including Dr. Fauci).  He was saying there is no definitive time for immunity once you had COVID.  He mentioned a documented case in Nevada where a person was re-infected after 9 weeks.  

 

I'm going to leave this one.  I'm just way too sensitive to the subject and people thinking that too many of us are just lying about what is happening to us. 

Thanks, girl(friend). I can barely imagine what you've been through and continue to go through. I think most of us really appreciate your 'voice.

[broberts]

3 hours ago, SelectSys said:

Are you suggesting that the studies by Pfizer and Moderna aren't collecting enough data from 40,000+ samples?   Are they not doing "science?"

 

Of course they are doing science. Like any good scientific investigation the studies are tightly focused examining a very narrowly defined subject. In the case of vaccine trials, the investigators are only interested efficacy, safety, and endursnce. 

 

None of us have seen the actually interim data produced by these trials. All we have are press releases which are most certainly not science.

Edited November 20, 2020 by broberts

[ontheweb]

5 hours ago, clo said:

Please provide reputable and verifiable citations to support all these claims.

Every day on the news we hear that the USA is setting records for both deaths and hospitalizations. We hear that ICUs in several places are having to turn people away. Yet, you are arguing with deniers who will never admit that this is an extremely serious problem that figures to only get worse until the vaccine is available to all. And even then, what happens when the deniers refuse the vaccine?

 

BTW, I also heard on the news today that Sweden which so far had escaped the second wave is now doing very poorly.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

 HerNo worries.  Feel free to ignore me if you feel my posts are not well reasoned.  

 

For anyone else who cares - As I said above, anecdotal information can lead to bad results.  Remember, data is not evidence/information.  Why are we going through vaccine trials if we didn't need sufficient samples to draw conclusions?   

 

https://www.oxford-review.com/data-v-evidence/

 

I think you and NBT are talking about 2 different things. Obviously the vaccine trials need data drawn from a large diverse group. I do not think he is arguing with you on that point. I believe he was talking about Slidergirl and her post-Covid experience and that that proves that getting the disease and surviving does not mean you are out of the woods healthwise. Her anecdotal evidence should be seen as a warning to those who do not take this pandemic seriously. Not everyone has her experience, but that does not make it not real.

[sverigecruiser]

12 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

BTW, I also heard on the news today that Sweden which so far had escaped the second wave is now doing very poorly.

 

September 11 we had 12 persons in intensive care because of Covid-19 in Sweden and right now it's 183. Very bad of course but still far from the 558 we had April 24.

 

Sweden has 633 deaths/1m pop right now and the US has 783 so much has happen during the summer and autumn compared how it was before the summer.

 

 

[ontheweb]

8 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

September 11 we had 12 persons in intensive care because of Covid-19 in Sweden and right now it's 183. Very bad of course but still far from the 558 we had April 24.

 

Sweden has 633 deaths/1m pop right now and the US has 783 so much has happen during the summer and autumn compared how it was before the summer.

 

 

The problem is that it is trending in the wrong direction. I did not catch the details as they said the story was coming up, but I think I heard them say that there will be mandates. Is that true? Or will masks and social distancing still just be recommended?

[sverigecruiser]

1 minute ago, ontheweb said:

The problem is that it is trending in the wrong direction. I did not catch the details as they said the story was coming up, but I think I heard them say that there will be mandates. Is that true? Or will masks and social distancing still just be recommended?

 

The trend is a very big problem!

 

Starting today bars and restaurants are not allowed to serve alcohol after 10 pm and people must leave by 10.30.

 

Masks are still not recommended and very few people were masks.

 

Social distancing is the main thing the authorities are talking about. 

[Toofarfromthesea]

5 hours ago, ontheweb said:

So, if she reads the studies, her maladies will magically disappear?

 

No, if she reads the studies she will learn that her maladies are the exception, not the rule.  Unless you are suggesting that we can draw scientific conclusions from a small number of anecdotal reports.

[broberts]

2 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

No, if she reads the studies she will learn that her maladies are the exception, not the rule.  Unless you are suggesting that we can draw scientific conclusions from a small number of anecdotal reports.

 

Since there are several such reports, the typical scientific conclusion at this time would be that the matter deserves study.