Changes in Onboard Behavior & Procedures after Cruises restart sailing again...

[ilikeanswers]

41 minutes ago, momofmab said:

And we've now seen what happens when viruses spread quickly on ships and ports refuse docking - so there should be no more surprise our outrage when virus cruises have to quarantine.

 

Future cruisers should probably prepare in case their cruise goes longer than expected. Things like extra medication for those taking any come to mind. 

[navybankerteacher]

While testing needs to be developed so it can be known whether infection confers immunity - as well as to isolate current carriers to prevent/minimize transmission, we seem to be approaching it in a haphazard manner.  Since it seems to take at least 24 hours for the results to be confirmed, all we know is that 24 hours ago someone was not infected. Someone could have gotten infected immediately after the sample was taken.   I think it should be explained what mass testing at this stage can accomplish - beyond overwhelming the labs processing the samples.

 

  Certainly, those with symptoms should be candidates for testing - as should be anyone in health care —- but what is the present rationale for making testing available for the general public?

[ilikeanswers]

21 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Certainly, those with symptoms should be candidates for testing - as should be anyone in health care —- but what is the present rationale for making testing available for the general public?

 

One rationale is to find those who are asymptomatic but infectious, another is to get to people early as it seems to decrease their chance of death and long term side effects if you can manage their symptoms before they get severe. 

[navybankerteacher]

53 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

One rationale is to find those who are asymptomatic but infectious, another is to get to people early as it seems to decrease their chance of death and long term side effects if you can manage their symptoms before they get severe. 

Agreed - but wouldn’t that then indicate that asymptomatic people should be continually tested and retested ?  So it’s not just a matter of testing everybody once - but continually.

[clo]

4 hours ago, momofmab said:

Cruisers should continue to decide for themselves whether the risk of possibly contracting a virus is worth taking -

Or acquiring the disease, but asymptomatic and able to infect others.

[ilikeanswers]

20 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Agreed - but wouldn’t that then indicate that asymptomatic people should be continually tested and retested ?  So it’s not just a matter of testing everybody once - but continually.

 

In Australia asymptomatic people are forced to self isolate and then after 14 days of their positive result they are retested 3 times over the next few days and have to achieve 3 negatives before they are considered free of the disease. As for retesting I suppose that comes down to rate of reinfection and whether the second infection is as deadly as the first. From what I understand we still don't have a definitive answer to this. 

[PoppyandNana]

On 3/28/2020 at 11:45 AM, ontheweb said:

If it is up to Tony Fauci, it's all over. Remember he said no one should go on a cruise. He also said no one over 70 should go on an airplane, but Trump vetoed that idea. So maybe it is up to what Fauci proposes that Trump will accept.

 

So far all they came up with is the letters from doctors that some lines are now requiring for passengers 70 and over.

 

The one thing I would propose that some lines are already doing is have servers on the buffets instead of self serve. That would be a lot easier to do than to have crew checking that passengers wash their hands after using the bathroom. (The last time I used a public bathroom, not that long ago, was in a skating rink. I of course washed my hands. The other person there at the same time as me did not. I cannot understand that behavior.

Just to play devils advocate, just what does washing your hands after using the restroom accomplish?  Number 2 - no question. Number 1 - I don't know.  It sounds good (I do it) but really what are you preventing? Covid 19? What else? Sounds good that everyone coming out of the restroom has nice clean hands - but again, what are we preventing.  Lots of men simply splash water on their hands - they don't scrub for 30 seconds with soap and hot water.

[navybankerteacher]

47 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

In Australia asymptomatic people are forced to self isolate and then after 14 days of their positive result they are retested 3 times over the next few days and have to achieve 3 negatives before they are considered free of the disease. As for retesting I suppose that comes down to rate of reinfection and whether the second infection is as deadly as the first. From what I understand we still don't have a definitive answer to this. 

There are two types of people without symptoms : those who are infected and have no way of knowing it without being tested, and those who are not infected and of course will show up negative when tested.

 

How often should the second type get retested?  Just because they were not infected when tested yesterday - giving the clear results today   - they could have been exposed five minutes after the sample was taken.   

 

For testing to really work, doesn’t it have to be continuous- or at least until the threat has largely been eradicated?

[Toofarfromthesea]

22 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Assuming that “numerator” refers to deaths, how are we “overcounting” the numerator when we have to be virtually certain that China is grossly understating deaths and North Korea is undeniably lying about their lack off any impact.  And if, as you say, “... they count as a COVID death based on symptoms...” why would you assume flu deaths are being so counted — the symptoms are not identical?

 

Obviously (obvious because of the reference to NY's counting and the 2 US studies I cited) I'm talking about the US.  I wouldn't count numbers from China in anything, as clearly they have lied from day 1.  Equally obvious is the fact that yes, the numerator is the # of deaths, as what else would be in the numerator of a mortality rate?  And yes, the symptoms are not identical, but they are close and these are deaths where no testing was done to ascertain infected status.  Did you read Cuomo's explanation of how they are counting?Hopefully they preserved tissue samples so that in the aftermath the samples can be tested and final accurate numbers can be determined.

Meanwhile, on March 24 in the state of Florida the model projected 465,000 hospitalizations in 30 days if they took no action and only 185,000 if they instituted social distancing.  At the end of the 30 days the actual number of hospitalizations was 2,000.  Two orders of magnitude less than the model came up with.

The models are trash and have stampeded a lot of less affected areas into massive overreactions.  Shockingly, mathematical models of poorly understood processes seeded with dubious data perform poorly.  (As an aside, the processes of the climate are far less understood than those of contagion spread, and the data isn't nearly as good as the contagion data we have.  Remember those 2 orders of magnitude that next time we are told the climate models tell us we only have 12 years to save the planet)

[Toofarfromthesea]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

While testing needs to be developed so it can be known whether infection confers immunity - as well as to isolate current carriers to prevent/minimize transmission, we seem to be approaching it in a haphazard manner.  Since it seems to take at least 24 hours for the results to be confirmed, all we know is that 24 hours ago someone was not infected. Someone could have gotten infected immediately after the sample was taken.   I think it should be explained what mass testing at this stage can accomplish - beyond overwhelming the labs processing the samples.

 

  Certainly, those with symptoms should be candidates for testing - as should be anyone in health care —- but what is the present rationale for making testing available for the general public?

 

I don't think you understand how this all works.  If infection doesn't confer immunity the likelihood of an effective vaccine plummets.  And if infection DOES confer immunity, then you CANNOT get infected 24 hours later.  Also, antibody testing gives us a much better idea of the REAL mortality rates, not scare rates where the denominator is severely understated.  Better data hopefully leading to better decisions, is the rationale for widespread antibody testing.  Diagnostic testing is not the same as population based testing.

There are different tests for different purposes.  This is not haphazard, it is science.

[navybankerteacher]

18 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

I don't think you understand how this all works.  If infection doesn't confer immunity the likelihood of an effective vaccine plummets.  And if infection DOES confer immunity, then you CANNOT get infected 24 hours later.  Also, antibody testing gives us a much better idea of the REAL mortality rates, not scare rates where the denominator is severely understated.  Better data hopefully leading to better decisions, is the rationale for widespread antibody testing.  Diagnostic testing is not the same as population based testing.

There are different tests for different purposes.  This is not haphazard, it is science.

I was talking about the frequency of re-testing for people who show up negative.  It IS haphazard to suggest that EVERYONE should get tested at a time like this — when testing materials, capacities and labs are overwhelmed, without bothering to think what should follow a negative result. 

 

Failing to think about the meaning of perhaps 50% of the tests is hardly “science”.

Edited April 22, 2020 by navybankerteacher

[navybankerteacher]

31 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

...

Meanwhile, on March 24 in the state of Florida the model projected 465,000 hospitalizations in 30 days if they took no action and only 185,000 if they instituted social distancing.  At the end of the 30 days the actual number of hospitalizations was 2,000.  Two orders of magnitude less than the model came up with.

...

The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Let’s see what happens as controls are eased.

[ilikeanswers]

6 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

The fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Let’s see what happens as controls are eased.

 

Germany was getting a lot of praise for their low death rate and I remember an article where a German minister told the media "don't congratulate us, it isn't over" 😂 Singapore does demonstrate not to be over confident too soon though their death rate is very good. 

[rkacruiser]

8 hours ago, PoppyandNana said:

Just to play devils advocate, just what does washing your hands after using the restroom accomplish?  Number 2 - no question. Number 1 - I don't know.  It sounds good (I do it) but really what are you preventing? Covid 19? What else? Sounds good that everyone coming out of the restroom has nice clean hands - but again, what are we preventing.  Lots of men simply splash water on their hands - they don't scrub for 30 seconds with soap and hot water.

 

Urine, number 1, contains bacteria.  Most of the time, it does no harm.  If one has, or is starting an urinary tract infection, such bacteria can become a problem for its host.  Could it be spread to others because one failed to wash one's hands?  One's genital area has to be host to a multitude of bacteria.  (Have you ever noticed a "scent" coming from that area or from one's underwear that needed to be worn longer than they ought?  What caused that "aroma"?)  

 

Splashing water on one's hands is probably better than nothing.  But, there is NO excuse for a man using a urinal, zipping up his pants, and then leaving his "mark" on the restroom's door handle.  

[momofmab]

18 hours ago, clo said:

Or acquiring the disease, but asymptomatic and able to infect others.

 

As you or I can also acquire with a weekly trip to the grocery store to get necessary items - even with social distancing measures, masks, gloves, etc.  In my city, the waitlist for grocery delivery is weeks out, so that's not an option for most.

 

Short of barricading people in their homes 24/7 until a vaccine is developed, and tested - there is no way to completely stop the spread.  All we can do is slow it down, which is what communities are attempting to do with social distancing measures (closing schools, businesses, having people work from home).  Some are arguing in support of people never leaving their homes, even to go for a walk - but most of us don't live in a police state, nor do we want to - moreover the long term economic and psychological effects of the shutdown also need to be seriously considered.

 

At some point, inevitably, a soft roll out and restart of the economy will have to take place (at least in the U.S.) with social distancing measures still in place (several states have already started).  Individuals will have to decide for themselves how they can continue to protect themselves, and unfortunately those who fall into the high risk catagories will likely have to continue to isolate and self-quarantine and limit contact with others until we have a vaccine.

 

[SRF]

On 4/21/2020 at 12:09 PM, navybankerteacher said:

I find it interesting that someone who has studied epidemiology and immunology would be so cavalier about not requiring measles immunization.

 

Where did I say to not get immunized against anything?  You may want to re-read what I said.

 

I said if the cruise lines start requiring SARS-Cov-2 vaccination, why would they not also require measles vaccine.  There is no valid reason for them to require passengers to get vaccinated.  Crew, yes.  

 

My point has been, which you seem to not be able to grasp, is there is no benefit to the cruise line to require this vaccine.  Just like they don't require ANY vaccination, unless there is a port that requires Yellow Fever (and yes, I maintain a current Yellow Fever vaccine).

 

I am a big proponent of vaccination.  And my vaccination list is just slightly shorter than the one posted.  

[SRF]

11 hours ago, rkacruiser said:

 

Urine, number 1, contains bacteria.  Most of the time, it does no harm.  If one has, or is starting an urinary tract infection, such bacteria can become a problem for its host.  Could it be spread to others because one failed to wash one's hands?  One's genital area has to be host to a multitude of bacteria.  (Have you ever noticed a "scent" coming from that area or from one's underwear that needed to be worn longer than they ought?  What caused that "aroma"?)  

 

Splashing water on one's hands is probably better than nothing.  But, there is NO excuse for a man using a urinal, zipping up his pants, and then leaving his "mark" on the restroom's door handle.  

 

Actually, unless you have a UTI or bladder infection, it does not.

 

You are correct about the general area being a breeding ground.

[AF-1]

Ladies and gentlemen.  I think we are giving out to much info about bacteria and genital areas.  We know about the virus; but we don't need to know every medical condition in detail.  Sorry but this is a little gross.  

[SRF]

19 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I was talking about the frequency of re-testing for people who show up negative.  It IS haphazard to suggest that EVERYONE should get tested at a time like this — when testing materials, capacities and labs are overwhelmed, without bothering to think what should follow a negative result. 

 

Failing to think about the meaning of perhaps 50% of the tests is hardly “science”.

 

Two different tests, for two different reasons.

 

The test that has being used only tells if you are currently infected.  And it mainly being used to confirm that a very sick person has this virus.  And yes, if you test negative today, it does not mean you will be negative tomorrow, as you could have been infected, but there is not yet enough virus to detect.

 

The antibody test is just being rolled out.  It tells who already had it.  So, if you are tested, and are positive for antibodies, you have had it and you are currently immune.  It can also be used to insure that if you are vaccinated, that the vaccine worked.

 

THIS test is the important one for getting back to normal.  If you have had it, you are not likely to get it again.  Just like having been vaccinated.  So you can go back to work, without worrying about those around you.

[SRF]

19 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

I don't think you understand how this all works.  If infection doesn't confer immunity the likelihood of an effective vaccine plummets.  And if infection DOES confer immunity, then you CANNOT get infected 24 hours later.  Also, antibody testing gives us a much better idea of the REAL mortality rates, not scare rates where the denominator is severely understated.  Better data hopefully leading to better decisions, is the rationale for widespread antibody testing.  Diagnostic testing is not the same as population based testing.

There are different tests for different purposes.  This is not haphazard, it is science.

 

Absolutely.

[SRF]

20 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Obviously (obvious because of the reference to NY's counting and the 2 US studies I cited) I'm talking about the US.  I wouldn't count numbers from China in anything, as clearly they have lied from day 1.  Equally obvious is the fact that yes, the numerator is the # of deaths, as what else would be in the numerator of a mortality rate?  And yes, the symptoms are not identical, but they are close and these are deaths where no testing was done to ascertain infected status.  Did you read Cuomo's explanation of how they are counting?Hopefully they preserved tissue samples so that in the aftermath the samples can be tested and final accurate numbers can be determined.

Meanwhile, on March 24 in the state of Florida the model projected 465,000 hospitalizations in 30 days if they took no action and only 185,000 if they instituted social distancing.  At the end of the 30 days the actual number of hospitalizations was 2,000.  Two orders of magnitude less than the model came up with.

The models are trash and have stampeded a lot of less affected areas into massive overreactions.  Shockingly, mathematical models of poorly understood processes seeded with dubious data perform poorly.  (As an aside, the processes of the climate are far less understood than those of contagion spread, and the data isn't nearly as good as the contagion data we have.  Remember those 2 orders of magnitude that next time we are told the climate models tell us we only have 12 years to save the planet)

 

The models are not trash.  The data being put into the models is.

 

We DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY CASES THERE ARE/HAVE BEEN.  Even now, they are telling people, if they have mild symptoms to just stay home.  All of those cases are not counted.  Asymptomatic cases are not being counted.

 

Estimates were from 10 to 300 times as many cases as reported.

 

A recent (published this week) study in San Mateo County, found that the unreported, but positive for antibody, was 48 to 85 times the reported cases in that county.

 

 

[SRF]

22 hours ago, clo said:

Or acquiring the disease, but asymptomatic and able to infect others.

 

But, once a vaccine and antibody test are readily available, they can only infect those that did not take steps (vaccination) to prevent being infected.

 

And that is THEIR choice to not be protected.

[Roger88]

I expect masks and gloves to be mandatory now. Also, I expect elderly people to go thorugh some checks a few day before boarding and moreover, this thing will be enforced on the governmental level. I only hope that a number of these limitations will be dismissed eventually. But this is the reality that awaits us right now 

[clo]

1 hour ago, AF-1 said:

Ladies and gentlemen.  I think we are giving out to much info about bacteria and genital areas.  We know about the virus; but we don't need to know every medical condition in detail.  Sorry but this is a little gross.  

And I disagree. 

[clo]

1 hour ago, Roger88 said:

I expect masks and gloves to be mandatory now.

You're talking about on a ship, right? I'd wondered about that. I'm not being sarcastic: how does one eat with a mask on? I have a really dry mouth so when we're in a store  I'll turn away from anything/anybody, slip my mask down, take a quick sip and replace it. A few seconds. I would also anticipate compliance to be very slim. I don't disagree with you, just don't see it happening.