Abandon hope all ye who enter here:

[BP99]

55 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Any vaccine with some decent efficacy will be incredibly valuable.  If a partially effective vaccine could reduce the number of hospitalizations substantially, I agree with you that it could be a game changer. 

 

This season's (2019-20 northern hemisphere) influenza vaccine has about 45% efficacy if you look at the CDC data here:

 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6907a1.htm

 

Without getting too technical, the most widely used Influenza vaccine in not live and is generally derived from components of the predicted circulating A and B strains.  Influenza still changes and other strains could be circulating regionally so the vaccine is partially effective in that sense.  But still highly recommended.  It still saves lives.

There is also a live attenuated influenza vaccine administered by nasal spray called FluMist.  There are other successful live attenuated vaccines against common viruses too like MMR and varicella.  For SARS-CoV-2 it is not currently known whether a subunit /non-live vaccine approach against it's surface proteins (spikes) will be effective.  Or possibly a live attenuated approach, or a genetic vector approach.   A lot to be done.  We do not know if SARS-CoV-2 has mutated substantially enough in its circulation this year to get around contemplated vaccine approaches.  But the genome data is being actively collected and analyzed from patients in different parts of the world.  It is critical data.  It will guide vaccine approaches.

 

 

 

Hi,

Several studies that have compared SARS-CoV-2 mutations indicate that the rate is

lower than that of influenza. They are optimistic for a vaccine approach.

[cangelmd]

53 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Any vaccine with some decent efficacy will be incredibly valuable.  If a partially effective vaccine could reduce the number of hospitalizations substantially, I agree with you that it could be a game changer. 

 

This season's (2019-20 northern hemisphere) influenza vaccine has about 45% efficacy if you look at the CDC data here:

 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6907a1.htm

 

Without getting too technical, the most widely used Influenza vaccine in not live and is generally derived from components of the predicted circulating A and B strains.  Influenza still changes and other strains could be circulating regionally so the vaccine is partially effective in that sense.  But still highly recommended.  It still saves lives.

There is also a live attenuated influenza vaccine administered by nasal spray called FluMist.  There are other successful live attenuated vaccines against common viruses too like MMR and varicella.  For SARS-CoV-2 it is not currently known whether a subunit /non-live vaccine approach against it's surface proteins (spikes) will be effective.  Or possibly a live attenuated approach, or a genetic vector approach.   A lot to be done.  We do not know if SARS-CoV-2 has mutated substantially enough in its circulation this year to get around contemplated vaccine approaches.  But the genome data is being actively collected and analyzed from patients in different parts of the world.  It is critical data.  It will guide vaccine approaches.

 

 

 

It’s encouraging to hear someone with virology knowledge say, yes a partially effective vaccine may be doable. I know this is an intensely competitive area/type of research, but I hope that under the circumstances, there is enough collaboration to cover all the different vaccine approaches - different antigens, live vs attenuated, etc.

We haven’t done very well with common cold vaccines, but this is a different set of imperatives.

[TeeRick]

Just now, BP99 said:

Hi,

Several studies that have compared SARS-CoV-2 mutations indicate that the rate is

lower than that of influenza. They are optimistic for a vaccine approach.

Yes thank you.  I have been encouraged by some of the early data on this.  But of course time will tell and the collection of a lot more data.

[TeeRick]

4 minutes ago, cangelmd said:

It’s encouraging to hear someone with virology knowledge say, yes a partially effective vaccine may be doable. I know this is an intensely competitive area/type of research, but I hope that under the circumstances, there is enough collaboration to cover all the different vaccine approaches - different antigens, live vs attenuated, etc.

We haven’t done very well with common cold vaccines, but this is a different set of imperatives.

Human Rhinoviruses cause over 50% of common colds but there are over 100 known serotypes.  They have an RNA genome so that is a similarity to influenza and the SARS viruses.   If we had a 100% effective vaccine against Rhinoviruses, unfortunately a lot of people would still have cold-like symptoms.

[cangelmd]

On 4/5/2020 at 9:50 PM, Ride-The-Waves said:

Two thoughts:

 

- Not everyone gets the flu vaccine.  Many don't believe in vaccinations.  They are likely some of our fellow cruisers.  

 

- The flu is a different strain between northern and southern hemispheres.  Learned that the hard way - caught the flu in Australia while vaccinated for the northern version.

Yep, that is something to consider if you travel to Australia in their winter. If I’m not mistaken, the Australian winter strains are often studied to help formulate the next years northern hemisphere vaccines. As Teerick pointed out, flu vaccines aren’t the most efficacious, 65% effective is a really, really good year, but that’s partly because formulating the vaccine months in advance is a guessing game.

As a clinician, though, you can see the effects of herd immunity in flu with slowly downward trended deaths, and more sharply trending downward morbidity (numbers and severity of illness). While any given person, in any given year, can get the flu after being vaccinated, their chances go way down with vaccination and I think observationally, that the severity of disease decreases.

[cangelmd]

2 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Human Rhinoviruses cause over 50% of common colds but there are over 100 known serotypes.  They have an RNA genome so that is a similarity to influenza and the SARS viruses.   If we had a 100% effective vaccine against Rhinoviruses, unfortunately a lot of people would still have cold-like symptoms.

Yes, we joke a lot about inventing a vaccine for the common cold and retiring richer than Bill Gates, but the truth is that there might not even be a realistic market for it.

You might need a shot every year and it only reduces the average number of colds from 3 to 2.

Try selling that to a public that resists flu shots and MMR for goodness sake.

 

If mask use becomes commonplace this fall and winter, and we continue emphasizing hand washing and social distancing, I think it will be interesting to see if those impact the rate of common cold.

[hcat]

1 hour ago, Ride-The-Waves said:

This should be funded by governments and not a foundation.  Government are the resources and the power to lead this type of research.  Its a global crisis and all government would be contributing on behalf of their people.

Any legitimate assistance and research  work would be helpful  and welcome by all including  private, university, hospital, foundations, etc.   The  task should not be solely on  govs  and definitely not  WHO!  As Tee Rick said All Hands on Deck!

Edited April 7, 2020 by hcat

[Grandma Cruising]

On 4/3/2020 at 8:02 PM, lostchild said:

 

Or if you tested positive for the antibody test.   I think a lot of people already had the covid-19 just didn't know about it.   

Even if you test positive for the antibody test (presuming they can find one that works properly - the current ones don’t)  - no-one know how long that will give you immunity.

[lostchild]

23 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

Even if you test positive for the antibody test (presuming they can find one that works properly - the current ones don’t)  - no-one know how long that will give you immunity.

 

Sure, but that is the same as people who will get the vaccine.   I was quoting the person who said he is waiting for the vaccine.  But if you already had the real thing, you don't really need to wait for the vaccine (weakened or dead version of the virus).

[UnorigionalName]

1 hour ago, lostchild said:

 

Sure, but that is the same as people who will get the vaccine.   I was quoting the person who said he is waiting for the vaccine.  But if you already had the real thing, you don't really need to wait for the vaccine (weakened or dead version of the virus).

 

I think best data shows at most about 50% asymptomatic, think ranges are like 25-50%ish.   Plus it may go down as "asymptomatic" convert to symptomatic.  They've done large scale testing now in several places, plus the cruise ships were heavily tested.  Don't think there is much hope that there like 90% asymptomatic like some people are dreaming about.

[Grandma Cruising]

1 hour ago, lostchild said:

 

Sure, but that is the same as people who will get the vaccine.   I was quoting the person who said he is waiting for the vaccine.  But if you already had the real thing, you don't really need to wait for the vaccine (weakened or dead version of the virus).

Not true - vaccine is different, it lasts a lot longer. If you has the virus mildly with no symptoms you may have only a few antibodies which will not give you strong or lengthy protection.

[markeb]

2 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

Not true - vaccine is different, it lasts a lot longer. If you has the virus mildly with no symptoms you may have only a few antibodies which will not give you strong or lengthy protection.

 

I'm sorry,, but we don't know that yet. Antibodies may or may not be indicative of long term immunity. Cell mediated immunity tends to dominate in viral infections and assays for that are still at best imperfect.They will be the accepted assays by the FDA, CE, etc. (because I don't know where the UK is going with that on at the end of the year) because of years of precedent. You may have lifelong protection from natural infection, but an antibody assay may not indicate that fact.

 

And the tests being used right now are still being used to screen, not to detect long term immunity. I've given up on trying to figure out who's testing for what as it all gets reported as "testing"; there are different purposes for diagnostic testing, different sensitivities, different positive and negative predictive values, etc. The serological test being used in the US apparently looks for a combination of indicators of acute infection as well as longer infection and/or recovery. Don't know if the testing in UK is the same.

[Ride-The-Waves]

3 hours ago, TeeRick said:

In the US the effort is being funded by the federal government directly or through grant support, and by private and public companies.  And by the generosity of private foundations like Gates.  All hands on deck.  Please do some research on the value and support of the Gates Foundation to worldwide health causes and in particular, vaccines.

Well aware and great proponent of what the Gates Foundation accomplishes and the issues it tackles.

 

However, even Gates cannot come close to the leverage and funding available from governments - all of the together.  This is an issue for all humanity and,'as you stated, "all hands on deck."

[Grandma Cruising]

10 minutes ago, markeb said:

 

I'm sorry,, but we don't know that yet. Antibodies may or may not be indicative of long term immunity. Cell mediated immunity tends to dominate in viral infections and assays for that are still at best imperfect.They will be the accepted assays by the FDA, CE, etc. (because I don't know where the UK is going with that on at the end of the year) because of years of precedent. You may have lifelong protection from natural infection, but an antibody assay may not indicate that fact.

 

And the tests being used right now are still being used to screen, not to detect long term immunity. I've given up on trying to figure out who's testing for what as it all gets reported as "testing"; there are different purposes for diagnostic testing, different sensitivities, different positive and negative predictive values, etc. The serological test being used in the US apparently looks for a combination of indicators of acute infection as well as longer infection and/or recovery. Don't know if the testing in UK is the same.

I know we bought several different antibody tests, in large numbers, and none of them have proved to be reliable. I gather the issue is they register if you’ve had a really high/bad dose of the virus, but not if you’ve been asymptomatic or had mild symptoms.

[markeb]

8 minutes ago, Host Grandma Cruising said:

I know we bought several different antibody tests, in large numbers, and none of them have proved to be reliable. I gather the issue is they register if you’ve had a really high/bad dose of the virus, but not if you’ve been asymptomatic or had mild symptoms.

 

Which is unfortunate as the real benefit of a convalescent serology test would be to know if you'd been exposed.

 

I haven't looked at the information on the test being used in the US. Have a good friend who's a medical microbiologist who says the US test "should" do both, but I don't know what it's sensitivity is (or if it's the same available in the UK). Unfortunately, everything's getting lumped together as if it's the same and for the same purpose. Even the Abbott rapid test says it's designed to minimize false positives, so it's really to tell if you're a case in a clinical setting, although right now if you have no or mild symptoms, you're not getting admitted and there's no specific treatment...

Edited April 7, 2020 by markeb

[Host Anne]

On 4/5/2020 at 1:13 PM, RICCruisers said:

 

Interesting comment. I guess since you are not being informed by the “Mainstream Media”, your Choice is to listen to the “Fringe Media” to receive your information.  

 

That is what I took away from your post. Please correct me if I took your post incorrectly. 

 

Nope....don't listen to fringe media either.  There are plenty of resources available that simply state the facts.  Being a former journalist, I just want the facts.  You cannot get honest facts from the media with some sort of twist to whichever way they want to slant it.  If you don't believe me, I challenge you to watch a wide array of different media outlets for the next several days.  Sometimes I wonder if they are all talking about the same thing.  I'll stick to the resources that provide plain ole facts.  

[Fouremco]

35 minutes ago, Host Anne said:

 

Nope....don't listen to fringe media either.  There are plenty of resources available that simply state the facts.  Being a former journalist, I just want the facts.  You cannot get honest facts from the media with some sort of twist to whichever way they want to slant it.  If you don't believe me, I challenge you to watch a wide array of different media outlets for the next several days.  Sometimes I wonder if they are all talking about the same thing.  I'll stick to the resources that provide plain ole facts.  

While I agree that most media outlets will have a spin to their reporting, it's typically consistent and easy to discern. Consequently, it's not overly difficult to read a cross section of articles or to watch news reporting and get a reasonably accurate sense of the truth.

 

I'm interested in knowing more about what you consider to be factual resources and why you believe that they are stating facts and not their interpretation of the fact.

[az_tchr]

2 hours ago, Host Anne said:

 

Nope....don't listen to fringe media either.  There are plenty of resources available that simply state the facts.  Being a former journalist, I just want the facts.  You cannot get honest facts from the media with some sort of twist to whichever way they want to slant it.  If you don't believe me, I challenge you to watch a wide array of different media outlets for the next several days.  Sometimes I wonder if they are all talking about the same thing.  I'll stick to the resources that provide plain ole facts.  

While CBC or the BBC seem to present the news in a mostly factual manner; in the US "news" seems to almost always have a political spin to it.  Different channel - different spin - and sadly many accept things on the "news" or Internet as being factual.  Plain ole facts are getting harder and harder to come by.  

[Quo Vadis?]

Anyone who gets their “facts” from a number of sources, develops a built in crap detector.  

[OuiOnboard]

9 hours ago, lostchild said:

 I was quoting the person who said he is waiting for the vaccine.  But if you already had the real thing, you don't really need to wait for the vaccine

I am the person waiting for the vaccine. I'm over 70 and I would hope that the vaccine would be less likely to render me dead than "the real thing". Thus, I'm trying hard not to get the virus.  Cruising was great and I might like to do it again someday.

[Redtravel]

RCL requires a doctor certification for guests 70+.  Have medical issues. We are waiting until life returns to normal.   When and if cruises come back, I won’t be looking at any RCL product.  Loyalty ?   Forget it. We’re out.

 

[zitsky]

What's wrong with making sure you're healthy while also protecting the cruise line from liability?

[Happy Cruiser 6143]

1 hour ago, zitsky said:

What's wrong with making sure you're healthy while also protecting the cruise line from liability?

 

The doctor's note only says he/she found you to be healthy on the date you were examined.  Which could be a month before you attempt to board a ship.  The whole thing is unworkable.

[Germancruiser]

I totaly agree Happy Cruiser- if they go that way- most cruise lines will sail half empthy- and I do not feel sorry for them at the least!

[hcat]

Some cruisers have chronic  situations like diabetes which might become a permant bar???? What about C Pap users?

 

We are sadly winding down  our future cruise expectations, but would like to get a refund for our  large future cruise credit if we cannot use it.

 

If they did that,  someone is welcome to take our place.