"Will It Be Safe to Travel When This Is All Over? Will We Even Know?"

[dsrdsrdsr]

12 hours ago, jeremyosborne81 said:

 

How about those of us who like to pretend we're still 18? 😁

Sadly, identifying as a child does not confer immunity!

[Joebucks]

We just need a COVID vaccine to get rid of the virus just like the flu vaccine eradicated the flu. Oh wait.

[calliopecruiser]

13 hours ago, dsrdsrdsr said:

It's probably coincidence that the California politician was did no harm because it is apparently very hard for children to transmit this virus.

Uh huh......because all those 30 children made their own way to and from the party, and there were no adults in there.  Those adults didn't hang around, watching their children and chatting.  Those 30 kids were at a birthday party without adult supervision and help.  Uh huh.

[calliopecruiser]

47 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

We just need a COVID vaccine to get rid of the virus just like the flu vaccine eradicated the flu. Oh wait.

Does anyone think we a vaccine can "get rid" of a virus?  It doesn't, which is why we continue to need vaccinations.  I haven't heard anyone say that a vaccine will "get rid" of the disease, except you.   However, what it does do is confer some immunity to slow the spread and/or mitigate the effects.  Right now, there's no immunity at all to Covid (possibly not even to those who've recovered), because it's just too new.  Any extra immunity that the population can have is a bonus. 

 

Actually, it has happened, only once in history, and it took almost 200 years of vaccinations around the world (smallpox). 

[Aquahound]

53 minutes ago, Joebucks said:

We just need a COVID vaccine to get rid of the virus just like the flu vaccine eradicated the flu. Oh wait.

 

At this point, I wish there was a vaccine against new COVID threads that aren't actually asking a cruise question.  

[lenquixote66]

12 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Well, this is as close to meaningless as any statistic can be - without some context..  The  percentage of the population which has been tested is a crucial bit of information.

 

 If just 16.7% of the population has been tested it would mean that everyone tested was positive - indicating that the entire population could be (more likely, has been) infected

 

But if everyone in the population has been tested, it would mean that only a rather small segment has been infected.

When we met and conversed on a cruise several years ago you were a delightful person.

We spoke about my friends residing in CT,restaurants we both dined in,etc.

I have absolutely no idea what your point is in the above.

1 of every 6 residents of Nassau County,NY tested positive for Covid-19.

[lenquixote66]

11 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

But if they meet at school every day I can't see why meeting at home once is an extra risk. 

Perhaps because the Governor closed the schools .

[clo]

1 hour ago, calliopecruiser said:

Actually, it has happened, only once in history, and it took almost 200 years of vaccinations around the world (smallpox). 

I still have my scar 🙂 Where do we stand now on polio?

[ldubs]

13 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Well, this is as close to meaningless as any statistic can be - without some context..  The  percentage of the population which has been tested is a crucial bit of information.

 

 If just 16.7% of the population has been tested it would mean that everyone tested was positive - indicating that the entire population could be (more likely, has been) infected

 

But if everyone in the population has been tested, it would mean that only a rather small segment has been infected.

 

"If just 16.7% of the population has been tested it would mean that everyone tested was positive - indicating that the entire population could be (more likely, has been) infected"

 

Huh?  That 16.7% tested positive means that 16.7% of the tests were positive.  That holds regardless of how  many tests were made or what percentage of the population was tested.  Let's be a little careful about what we call meaningless.   

[ilikeanswers]

"We Need Safety, but Not Safety Theater" 

 

I am glad to see someone brought up that point. I do worry that we will end up with procedures that make travel more complicated but achieve nothing useful at all. If anything is implemented I want it to be something with substance not just to make people feel better. 

[clo]

1 minute ago, ilikeanswers said:

"We Need Safety, but Not Safety Theater" 

 

I am glad to see someone brought up that point. I do worry that we will end up with procedures that make travel more complicated but achieve nothing useful at all. If anything is implemented I want it to be something with substance not just to make people feel better. 

Not being snarky. Do you have anything in mind? Pre-vaccine (if there ever is one)?

[navybankerteacher]

52 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

"If just 16.7% of the population has been tested it would mean that everyone tested was positive - indicating that the entire population could be (more likely, has been) infected"

 

Huh?  That 16.7% tested positive means that 16.7% of the tests were positive.  That holds regardless of how  many tests were made or what percentage of the population was tested.  Let's be a little careful about what we call meaningless.   

The post to which I responded stated only that “... 16.7% of the RESIDENTS tested positive...”— it said nothing about the percentage of the TESTS which were positive, which leaves the meaning unclear.  If everyone had been tested we would have a meaning: that 83.3% tested negative.   If only 16.7% of the residents  had been tested - it would mean that 100% OF THOSE TESTED were positive and none OF THOSE TESTED were negative.  

 

So, I would say that showing that anywhere between 0% and 83.3% tested negative is kind of meaningless.

[sverigecruiser]

1 hour ago, lenquixote66 said:

Perhaps because the Governor closed the schools .

 

I asked if it was possible that they very together in school too and if the answer to that is no I agree that the parents were ignorant.

[TheOldBear]

47 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

The post to which I responded stated only that “... 16.7% of the RESIDENTS tested positive...”— it said nothing about the percentage of the TESTS which were positive, which leaves the meaning unclear.  If everyone had been tested we would have a meaning: that 83.3% tested negative.   If only 16.7% of the residents  had been tested - it would mean that 100% OF THOSE TESTED were positive and none OF THOSE TESTED were negative.  

 

So, I would say that showing that anywhere between 0% and 83.3% tested negative is kind of meaningless.

 

On demand antibody testing just became available this week. This test [along with a NY State testing effort] focusing on the asymptomatic provides a measurement of what sort of 'herd immunity' is developing. 

 

What has been discovered is there are orders of magnitude more folks exposed [have antibodies] than have tested positive for the virus. This is actually good news. [I will be getting a test at LabCorp or CityMD this week or next]

[calliopecruiser]

2 hours ago, clo said:

I still have my scar 🙂 Where do we stand now on polio?

 

We're very, very close; there are about 50 cases of wild polio, and about 100 cases of vaccine-associated polio in the entire world so far this year.  Pakistan and Afghanistan seem to be the current hot spots.  Once they get the wild polio number down to nothing, they can switch vaccines to get rid of the vaccine associated numbers too. 

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

The post to which I responded stated only that “... 16.7% of the RESIDENTS tested positive...”— it said nothing about the percentage of the TESTS which were positive, which leaves the meaning unclear.  If everyone had been tested we would have a meaning: that 83.3% tested negative.   If only 16.7% of the residents  had been tested - it would mean that 100% OF THOSE TESTED were positive and none OF THOSE TESTED were negative.  

 

So, I would say that showing that anywhere between 0% and 83.3% tested negative is kind of meaningless.

 

"16.7% of the RESIDENTS tested positive...”— it said nothing about the percentage of the TESTS which were positive"

 

Haha, this is even better!  I know you like to be contrary, but you are really reaching here.  Let me try to help you.  Clearly, the meaning of saying that 16.7% of residents tested positive is the same  as saying 16.7% of tests were positive.  

 

I look forward to you next attempt to side step a truly meaningless comment.   

[ldubs]

22 minutes ago, TheOldBear said:

 

What has been discovered is there are orders of magnitude more folks exposed [have antibodies] than have tested positive for the virus. This is actually good news. [I will be getting a test at LabCorp or CityMD this week or next]

 

👍👍👍

[ontheweb]

22 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

My father was in his mid 20’s during the Spanish Flu and was not affected by it.

I remember the 1957-58 outbreak.Everything you cited on the reference point is valid .

I have no idea how old you are and I am not going to ask but from reading your posts in the 11 years I have been posting on CC boards I know that you are a very intelligent person.Therefore,I would think that you would have to concur with me that there has never been anything like Covid-19 to the degree of the virus.

I read today that 16.7 percent of the residents in the county that I reside in have tested positive for the virus.In my entire lifetime I have personally known only 2 people who had AIDS .

What was the sample that was tested? Did it consist of people who came in for tests because they had reason to believe they either had the virus or were exposed to it? That would hardly be the type of random sample that could allow you to draw a conclusion about what percentage of your county had it.

[lenquixote66]

6 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

I asked if it was possible that they very together in school too and if the answer to that is no I agree that the parents were ignorant.

I would not think so since their school was closed.

[lenquixote66]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

What was the sample that was tested? Did it consist of people who came in for tests because they had reason to believe they either had the virus or were exposed to it? That would hardly be the type of random sample that could allow you to draw a conclusion about what percentage of your county had it.

I have no idea, I read an article in my local newspaper which I threw away immediately after reading .It stated that in Nassau County 16.7 percent of residents tested posititive for Covid-ID .I merely posted what I read. Would you like me to refrain from posting ?

[clo]

8 minutes ago, lenquixote66 said:

I have no idea, I read an article in my local newspaper which I threw away immediately after reading .It stated that in Nassau County 16.7 percent of residents tested posititive for Covid-ID .I merely posted what I read. Would you like me to refrain from posting ?

I haven't been following this subthread but is this what you're talking about?

 

https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/news/testing-shows-167-of-liers-have-covid-antibodies

 

All I did was google "nassau county 16.7% covid"

[lenquixote66]

9 minutes ago, clo said:

I haven't been following this subthread but is this what you're talking about?

 

https://wcbs880.radio.com/articles/news/testing-shows-167-of-liers-have-covid-antibodies

 

All I did was google "nassau county 16.7% covid"

Presumably .i threw away the newspaper after reading it because it was left on my grass.I cannot recall the article verbatim.

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, lenquixote66 said:

I have no idea, I read an article in my local newspaper which I threw away immediately after reading .It stated that in Nassau County 16.7 percent of residents tested posititive for Covid-ID .I merely posted what I read. Would you like me to refrain from posting ?

Wow, I never implied that you should not post. I was just examining the "facts' that you posted. I do not doubt that you read them, only what they really mean.

[clo]

2 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

Presumably .i threw away the newspaper after reading it because it was left on my grass.I cannot recall the article verbatim.

Didn't that link pretty much say what you meant?

[lenquixote66]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

Wow, I never implied that you should not post. I was just examining the "facts' that you posted. I do not doubt that you read them, only what they really mean.

Okay,I still did not talk to Kapito.😀