Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

Shawnino

Members
  • Content Count

    2,510
  • Joined

About Shawnino

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

About Me

  • Location
    Canada
  • Interests
    Bridge
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
    Promiscuous Cruiser
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call
    Antarctica

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The short answer I thought it went without saying that we would also want vaccines to have some measure of success. otherwise there's no point. The long answer is that I come at this from a vaccine safety perspective. I leave efficacy to others. But from what I'm reading, two themes seem to be emerging: --The efficacy rates of current candidates look more like flu shot rates (40-60%) than smallpox (95%) or shingles (90%). Let there be no doubt: this virus is not "the flu". But that's the level where our tech is. --There is unproven thinking that different vaccines will have different efficacies in different populations. This shot might be better for oldsters; that one might be better for people with certain pre-exising conditions, etc. There's a pre-print out that suggests a certain vaccine will run better in people with Type-O blood than in those with other blood types. I have yet to see proof, but people I trust are cautiously moved by the evidence. As I say, I do some work on data on the safety side, moreso in paediatric vaccines than in anything else. I don't know enough to talk efficacy. But I had hoped it'd be clear that just as I don't want vaccines that don't meet a good safety threshold out there, I don't want ineffective vaccines (or therapeutics) out there either.
  2. Yes it's up to the doctor, but my point is he's a poor doctor if he fires every patient who doesn't do exactly what he says. Medicine is a science, but hardly an exact one.
  3. Yes, really. Educate yourself, starting with HIPAA.
  4. It will be really interesting to see if this stands up to state and federal labour laws. I think it'd be great if everyone who can get the vaccine gets it. Making it a condition of employment doesn't feel like a slam dunk.
  5. What a joke of a doctor. Can I at least assume he'll take the vaccine himself? Does he fire all his patients if he recommends Treatment A and they opt to pass or for Treatment B? (Let the record reflect that once we have a satisfactorily safe vaccine, I do selfishly want all of you to get it, because I can't. Let the record further reflect I do mathematical review for vaccine studies, so I'm as pro-vaccine as they come.)
  6. You forgot Dr. Feelgood , Dr. Demento, and Dr. Pepper.
  7. The vast majority of people I'm in touch with are voting their pocketbook on this one. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that. It's not ideal but forced to choose, I'd rather see people vote rationally than irrationally even if I don't love the specific rationale. It breaks down like this: --People who are financially independent and/or retired like the notion of a lockdown. They don't want to get sick. --In my country, the government handout works out to a few bucks more than minimum wage. Workers making less than that, or roughly same as that, like the lockdown because they get money for nothing and it hasn't materially hurt their economics. ...whereas... --The people who need an open society to maintain their standard of living are against lockdowns because they're getting absolutely crushed financially. Like the chair hogs, like the pigs jumping the line with their elbows out at the Chocolate Buffet, like the yokels who insist that everything is better back home, most people are in this strictly for their own interest.
  8. It seems like the ones who get poor reviews in the guest survey are less likely to be invited back, whereas the ones who do well get scooped up by other lines that are more into enrichment.
  9. (Emphasis mine.) I'm not sure that vaccines will ever be mandatory, and even if they are, around here that won't be a sufficient condition for relief from the requirement. Of course the vaccines are going to help, but everything I'm being told is that their efficacy rate will be similar to the flu shot (40-60% per year), not similar to the smallpox shot (95%-ish for 3+ years). Suppose we do a little better than the flu shot (so far, this strain of Covid is indeed less of a moving target) and are running at 60-80% efficacy for the vaccine. In my neck of the (back)woods that's not enough for the yokels to want to welcome cruise ship pax again. The Great Unwashed in this port are going to want to see an extremely recent negative test. So I wonder if what will be needed is shipboard testing every 48 hours or so.
  10. A 4pm embarkation time would jam up dinner and the muster drill. Not to mention that those getting in a day or more early have to make luggage arrangements for the day. Even if I can't board, I love dropping off my luggage at the pier at 10-11, knowing it's one less thing I need to deal with for the rest of the day.
  11. +1. Ships won't have enough pax on a Ships' Tours Only model, even if the target is 50% of previous occ. If I wanted my excursions planned out by operator, I'd do a bus tour. I've never done a bus tour.
  12. Oh my. What passes for "proof" these days...
  13. Maybe today. Who knows about tomorrow? Everything is so seat of the pants.
  14. I would expect testing to still be required. Comcox hits on a lot of it. No vaccine is 100%. No one's sure how long a duration the various vaccines will have. Ships don't care if you're vaccinated. They care whether or not you have Wuhan virus.
  15. Visas there can be pretty restrictive. I married a Soviet-cum-Russian citizen in '05. My visas to go to Moscow are familial invitations by the MIL. Every three days I need to show up and check in at the (not so) friendly Neighbourhood Interior Ministry Office.
×
×
  • Create New...