Jump to content

PRINCESS SHIPS & CORONA VIRUS


mcrcruiser
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, GJCruiser said:

I hope they have an accurate source. Nothing from JMH or Princess on this.

 

I posted about it this afternoon having read it in UK newspapers the Daily Mail & the Independent but I wasn't sure how trustworthy those sources were.  I guess NBC trusts it's source?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, GJCruiser said:

I hope they have an accurate source. Nothing from JMH or Princess on this.

From WHO 

 

The WHO said in a press conference on February 10 that:

a very long incubation period could reflect a double exposure.

24 days represented an outlying observation that must be taken into consideration in the context of the main finding of the study.

WHO is not considering changing recommendations regarding incubation periods.

 

It apparently is from one paper that has not been peer reviewed.  Who is sticking with 14 days for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, npcl said:

It apparently is from one paper that has not been peer reviewed.  Who is sticking with 14 days for now.

So NBC news was reporting Fake News. The quarantine remains at 14 days for those that have not had direct contact with any person who has tested positive during those 14 days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, GJCruiser said:

So NBC news was reporting Fake News. The quarantine remains at 14 days for those that have not had direct contact with any person who has tested positive during those 14 days.

No fake news.

 

"New research based on data gathered from more than 1,000 coronavirus patients in China found that the incubation period for the virus was as long as 24 days rather than the previously believed 14 days, and fewer than half of the patients showed fever symptoms when they first saw doctors.

The study, produced by at least three dozen researchers from Chinese hospitals and medical schools led by Dr Zhong Nanshan, a Chinese epidemiologist who discovered the Sars coronavirus in 2003, showed that much is still unknown about the deadly virus named 2019-nCoV."

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/coronavirus-new-study-finds-incubation-period-of-up-to-24-days

Edited by bluesea321
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, GJCruiser said:

So NBC news was reporting Fake News. The quarantine remains at 14 days for those that have not had direct contact with any person who has tested positive during those 14 days.

Not fake news, just not validated news.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SunNFunCruzer said:

 

This was just posted:  

 

Yes and the WHO in their news conference today  Feb 10, said

 

  • a very long incubation period could reflect a double exposure.
  • 24 days represented an outlying observation that must be taken into consideration in the context of the main finding of the study.
  • WHO is not considering changing recommendations regarding incubation periods.

 

So as far as WHO is concerned the paper is not verified.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Colo Cruiser said:

Ha!  Validated by who?  🤔

according to the WHO press conference today

 

a very long incubation period could reflect a double exposure.


24 days represented an outlying observation that must be taken into consideration in the context of the main finding of the study.


WHO is not considering changing recommendations regarding incubation periods.

 

So to answer your comment groups such as MHW, WHO and CDC.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, npcl said:

according to the WHO press conference today

 

a very long incubation period could reflect a double exposure.


24 days represented an outlying observation that must be taken into consideration in the context of the main finding of the study.


WHO is not considering changing recommendations regarding incubation periods.

 

So to answer your comment groups such as MHW, WHO and CDC.  

Yeah I get it.........

I don't think the MSM cares anything about those organizations unless it benefits them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, npcl said:

Yes and the WHO in their news conference today  Feb 10, said

 

  • a very long incubation period could reflect a double exposure.

 

 

 

Or it could Not. It could be outliers have a 24 day contagious/incubation period. That's the point. This is a fluid situation with no historical data to rely on.  Governments and Transport companies should be exercising extreme caution and should proceed with caution. If that means a longer quarantine for a minority to keep the majority safe, then so be it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SunNFunCruzer said:

 

Or it could Not. It could be outliers have a 24 day contagious/incubation period. That's the point. This is a fluid situation with no historical data to rely on.  Governments and Transport companies should be exercising extreme caution and should proceed with caution. If that means a longer quarantine for a minority to keep the majority safe, then so be it.

Might not, but I would tend to go with WHO on this, until they or one of the other national agencies  (MHW, CDC, etc) decide to make the change to the lower date.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, npcl said:

Might not, but I would tend to go with WHO on this, until they or one of the other national agencies  (MHW, CDC, etc) decide to make the change to the lower date.

 

And if they're wrong? Those WHO workers in their hazmat suits, then what?  Who suffers the consequences (no pun intended).  Of course, any human with empathy and compassion wants them off the ship and out of quarantine asap (especially those in an inside cabin).  But, at what cost?

 

It's easy for you, me and others to sit behind our computer screens and say "this is what we know, let's bring them home" -- but have you thought about the children of the businessman who may sit next to one of them and become infected? Or the grandchildren of the woman who drives them to the airport in her taxi and gets sick?  Why is one set of people any more valuable than another?  

 

IMO there is no way to tell who has been exposed on the Diamond and how long they will be contagious if they are exposed. If keeping people isolated for an extra week or two with internet, phone, tv, food, heat, and a private bed and bathroom with fresh towels and sheets  (a luxury many in the world would voluntarily sign up for, even underprivileged citizens of the US) can save others from becoming sick, then that's the call I would make. Even if the chance that they are carriers is low (15-20%).  Of course that's my opinion and WHO and the Japanese Health Ministry & the US Government will have their own opinions and will make the final decisions.

Edited by SunNFunCruzer
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SunNFunCruzer said:

 

And if their wrong? Those WHO workers in their hazmat suits, then what?  Who suffers the consequences (no pun intended).  Of course, any human with empathy and compassion wants them off the ship and out of quarantine asap (especially those in an inside cabin).  But, at what cost?

 

It's easy for you, me and others to sit behind our computer screens and say "this is what we know, let's bring them home" -- but have you thought about the children of the businessman who may sit next to one of them and become infected? Or the grandchildren of the woman who drives them to the airport in her taxi and gets sick?  Why is one set of people any more valuable than another?  

 

IMO there is no way to tell who has been exposed on the Diamond and how long they will be contagious if they are exposed. If keeping people isolated for an extra week or two with internet, phone, tv, food, heat, and a private bed and bathroom with fresh towels and sheets  (a luxury many in the world would voluntarily sign up for, even underprivileged citizens of the US) can save others from becoming sick, then that's the call I would make. Even if the chance that they are carriers is low (15-20%).  Of course that's my opinion and WHO and the Japanese Health Ministry & the US Government will have their own opinions and will made the final decisions.

This is all about balancing risk and impact.  It always is and always will be.  There is no such thing as a perfect solution, but the agencies that have the responsibility do need to validate the data and balance there reaction.  If they have 50 sources that say X and 1 that says Y.  They will evaluate all of the data they have and make the decision that ALL of the data indicates.

 

Why does everyone seem to think that the official agencies are idiots when it comes to a new paper, which is an outlier in the dataset if they don't immediately jump to the conclusion that out infinitely brilliant mass media is report as fact.  Instead of being a paper drawing a outlier conclusion, one that WHO has indicated might be explained by other scenerios.

 

If and only if the data sets supports the conclusion drawn by the paper will the agencies make the change.

Edited by npcl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, npcl said:

This is all about balancing risk and impact. 

 

You hit the nail on the head, and you can't have it both ways.

 

If you trust WHO/Japanese Ministry that 1) quarantining on the ship is Not spreading the virus, then you should trust them to 2) release people on the 19th.

 

IF 1) is true -- that quarantining on the ship is Not spreading the virus, then I believe keeping people on the ship for an extra 14 days and/or until 24 days after anyone in their sphere of movement was first diagnosed, gives you the least risk and most reward for the general population.

 

IF you fear that 1) is false, then why are you relying on those same organizations to make the determination that after the 19th there's no or minimal risk to the public?  Either you trust what they're saying and rely on it, or you don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper has not been peer-reviewed. Chances are it will be, and its conclusions either found well-based or not supported by the data used.

 

Meanwhile, scientists will keep it in mind as they cautiously approach decision times. If a lot of new cases arise in the next week, I would expect the 19th to be way off the table, regardless of whether a bunch of guesses say 14 days with only one study saying 24.

Edited by mayleeman
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

The paper has not been peer-reviewed. Chances are it will be, and its conclusions either found well-based or not supported by the data used.

 

Meanwhile, scientists will keep it in mind as they cautiously approach decision times. If a lot of new cases arise in the next week, I would expect the 19th to be way off the table, regardless of whether a bunch of guesses say 14 days with only one study saying 24.

Not peer reviewed but the paper is co-authored by the Doctor who discovered/raised the alarm about SARS in 2003. His data is based on 1000 infected patients. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 8:04 PM, Felix331 said:

For everyone talking about the south pacific changes, this is due to the measles outbreak going on there. Samoa wants proof of cruise passengers having the MMR vaccine or they won't take the ship. Hence why it was cancelled and why Fiji had been cancelled on previous cruises as well. 

 

We are on the Emerald Princess now, and our stops at Samoa and American Samoa have been cancelled due to the 'health clearance procedures' being enforced by Samoa due to coronavirus... nothing to do with measles. We have a letter to that effect, and the captain also explained over the PA. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people refused to believe anything but WHO when WHO was just less than 10 days ago didn't think this was that serious and didn't declare a global health emergency.  WHO is not infallible.  Good god, if this is related to your health, ask a few more questions.  

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...