There's No Point to Temperature Checks for Cruising - They are Useless

[Tapi]

23 hours ago, donaldsc said:

Here is an article that I found on the WEB...

 

It must be true then...! 😂

 

Seriously, here are my two cents. Everything that we do (wear masks, wash our hands, keep our distance, etc) isn’t to eliminate the spread of the virus, but to reduce it.  None of these things individually can stop the virus 100%. But their cumulative effect is significant.   

 

Add temperature checks to that list. If temperature checks can identify 30% of people who may have COVID, that’s 30% less infected people that could potentially board a ship. It may not identify everybody, but it helps, and that’s what matters. 
 

 

[John Bull]

4 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

  I wear a mask AND gloves whenever I go out.  Do you wear both.  Masks and gloves have definitely been shown to work.

 

DON

 

I doubt that you need advice about when to wear or not wear gloves, Don, but for those who've not given it a lot of thought, gloves are generally not advisable.

 

Just like hands, gloves can pick up the virus from things that you touch and transfer it to your own things.  

Think of a simple operation like using a gas pump..........

I remove my gas cap & insert my credit card, then sanitise my hands before touching the pump's buttons, pumping gas and returning the pump to its holster. Then I sanitise my hands again before retrieving my card and replacing my gas cap. I may have to do the same again if I pay at the kiosk.

So very much safer and easier to use the sanitiser several times than than to take gloves on and off several times or, as one should, to use fresh gloves each time.  

 

Gloves only make more sense when you are working in a potentially contaminated area or handling potentially infected items, but should be removed & properly disposed-of, then hands washed or sanitised when leaving that area.

 

CDC says much the same thing

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/gloves.html

 

Masks have their limitations, but one additional benefit is that they prevent you from touching your face - something which folk do on average 16 times an hour !!!

 

JB 

 

[sanger727]

9 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Perhaps I will also carry a little nose snot, blood, and pills to suppress and hide everything. 

 

You know the intent of the screening is to catch the majority of the population. There is always the devious person, as well as the troll on CC who throws criticism at how everything is so ineffective, LOL

 

Cruises used to have health screenings prior to boarding where they asked if you had anything on the list of symptoms and of course, nearly everyone said no because they wanted to go on their cruise. If you had any of the listed symptoms and you planned to say no, it would be common sense to take any OTCs that 1. Might make you feel more comfortable or 2. Might help you hide the symptoms. This isn’t a crazy conspiracy. When most people have an upper respiratory infection they take dayquil, Cough drops, nasal decongestant etc to suppress their symptoms. When most people have a fever they take Tylenol or whatever (I can’t remember the last time I had a fever so not entirely sure what you take) to feel better. If they are set and determined to take their trip anyway, of course they will take it ahead. 
 

now, will it help enough to get you through a screening? I don’t know. Also have to figure out if we are trying to catch the person who has good intentions and doesn’t realize they are sick or catch the person who realizes they are sick but isn’t going to let it get in the way of their good time.

 

last year I had a very large trip planned. A few days before it my husband came down with a stomach virus. I was terrified that I might catch it and avoided him as much as I could and santized the house constantly. Leading up to the flight I certainly could have been infected. But I never felt sick so went ahead and Took my trip. This is a case where had I been in an early stage of infection and not realized it, a temperature check possibly could have helped. Or not, who knows. I never did get sick so in hindsight I’m confident I wasn’t infected. But at the time of the trip, there was no way to know.

[2wheelin]

9 hours ago, chipmaster said:

 

Well if obesity counts as unhealthy no wonder US leads in death, sad how the richest seem to eat a bit much at the buffet 😄

 

Getting off topic but interesting how the obesity rate does not translate to a similar rate of diabetes. So I guess we are healthier obese. Actually it is a fact there are obese who have no other underlying issues. Fortunately obesity is not contagious. 🙂

[ed01106]

12 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

I don't think people are catastrophizing like that. They would be thinking like that Chinese traveller "I don't want to miss my trip because I am a little feverish so I will take this antipyretic and I am sure I will get better and everything will be fine" 

 

I think there has been a mindshift for many but not all in the last few weeks.  I know of several people who a few months ago would have done the same thing but not now.  And whose attitude about calling in sick from work was “take some cold medicine and suck it up” who now have an attitude of “stay home to avoid spreading to others” 

 

I think the number of people who would actively deceive a health check was never very large, but is smaller today. 

[ed01106]

2 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

Getting off topic but interesting how the obesity rate does not translate to a similar rate of diabetes. So I guess we are healthier obese. Actually it is a fact there are obese who have no other underlying issues. Fortunately obesity is not contagious. 🙂

Based on the data points shown on the graph there is a correlation between obesity and diabetes.  It is not a linear function but the correlation is shown, and is also well documented in studies with vastly more data than the simple chart you misread.  

[HxFx]

15 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

I corrected a typo error although the data in the links was correct.  Of the people who had known Covid

 

30% had a fever , tested positive w the temperature test and had Covid so the temperature check did it's job

70% did not have a fever, tested negative w the temperature test, actually had Covid so the temperature check failed.

 

That means that the temperature check misses 70% of the people who are known to have Covid.  As I also noted, nobody has any idea what the miss rate (false negative) for people who are sick but asymptomatic or who just feel a bit sick and have not gone to the hospital because the study was not designed to look for and test these people.  To find what these numbers are, you would have to test a large group of randomly selected people and give them both a temperature and swab test.  Want to bet that the false negative rate for this group would higher than 70%.  

 

DON

I wonder, though, if asymptomatic folks have a lower viral load so less likely to spread it. Would be interesting to know the stats on that. If that were the case, if they had regular temperature screenings maybe that would catch folks as the viral load gets higher. They could use those thermal cameras to be less invasive (after the initial individual screenings to get on board).

[ed01106]

2 minutes ago, HxFx said:

I wonder, though, if asymptomatic folks have a lower viral load so less likely to spread it. Would be interesting to know the stats on that. If that were the case, if they had regular temperature screenings maybe that would catch folks as the viral load gets higher. They could use those thermal cameras to be less invasive (after the initial individual screenings to get on board).

 

If that was the case we would not have a pandemic.  The reason we have this mess is the ease of spread by asymptotic people. It is rather easy to control  a disease in which a symptomatic people are unlikely to spread the disease.

[chipmaster]

4 hours ago, ed01106 said:

Based on the data points shown on the graph there is a correlation between obesity and diabetes.  It is not a linear function but the correlation is shown, and is also well documented in studies with vastly more data than the simple chart you misread.  

 

Yes, the chart as many are sometimes read and interpreted to ones desire or ignorance.

 

You could technically be obese and be very fit, or thin and very unfit.    They are all risk factors and clearly better to be fit and carry a few less lbs, the same can be said if you were going to war and had to do battle, but an argument could be made size does have advantages as long as it is fit and big, LOL 

[Roger88]

For temperature checks  they use those basic electronic thermometers. They never show the true temperature. Moreover, they have many issues with measuring temperature at certain conditions. Especially if it happens outside. I would rather use regular thermometers but they are very time consuming. So there are no real way to ease this process at the moment  

[taglovestocruise]

On 5/22/2020 at 3:28 AM, chengkp75 said:

We use one at the gangway of our ship, but it comes with significant limitations in the usage instructions.  Changes in environmental temperature (even a person holding the unit for a long period) can affect the readings.  Exercise can affect the reading.  Perspiration can affect the reading.  If the person has changed environment within a few minutes (gone from outside to air conditioning) it can affect readings.  Lots of studies show that the forehead temperature scan is the least accurate, and that if a surface scan is desired, it should be done behind the ear.

I saw a interview with Mark Cuban and the use of forehead temperature checks.  He said they check is easy to beat, lick your finger wipe your forehead and your temp will drop by a degree. Just as easy to wipe behind the ear. 

[2wheelin]

7 hours ago, ed01106 said:

Based on the data points shown on the graph there is a correlation between obesity and diabetes.  It is not a linear function but the correlation is shown, and is also well documented in studies with vastly more data than the simple chart you misread.  

I don’t know what chart you are reading but the one presented shows no such correlations (although there is one). It does show that Sweden has a diabetes rate which is 53% of the obesity rate while the US has only a 23% diabetes rate compared to obesity. That is the point I made about healthier obese. 

There is a correlation between obesity and diabetes but clearly it is a very different correlation between the two countries. Further, not all people with diabetes are obese which further confounds the data when you only look at a few statistics as in your graph. My point was that the US obese could be healthier—as a group—than those in Sweden. They have half the incidence of diabetes as compared to obesity.

I am not the one who drew the incorrect conclusion from the chart.

[monykalyn]

On 5/22/2020 at 10:16 PM, Tapi said:

If temperature checks can identify 30% of people who may have COVID,

It's not 30% who may have it it is 30% of the symptomatic who have it. Seems most are pre symptomatic or asymptomatic. And then I want to know-if you are asymptomatic how infectious are you and how how much does it take to make someone else get a severe case? Because if the "majority" seem to be asymptomatic and so mild it doesn't matter?? But it is all in how much severe illness it can cause. And not a single study yet has shown what that is. What is becoming clear-you need to be in close direct contact in enclosed spaces for longer lengths of time. Why it is going through care homes, prisons, plants and poor dwellings (like the favelas of Brazil). 

[TNcruising02]

27 minutes ago, monykalyn said:

It's not 30% who may have it it is 30% of the symptomatic who have it. Seems most are pre symptomatic or asymptomatic. And then I want to know-if you are asymptomatic how infectious are you and how how much does it take to make someone else get a severe case? Because if the "majority" seem to be asymptomatic and so mild it doesn't matter?? But it is all in how much severe illness it can cause. And not a single study yet has shown what that is. What is becoming clear-you need to be in close direct contact in enclosed spaces for longer lengths of time. Why it is going through care homes, prisons, plants and poor dwellings (like the favelas of Brazil). 

 

I'll bet New York took a big hit because so many people use public transportation like the subways.  Hopefully, there will be a quick covid test for cruising.  There are groups working on early detection tests, which would eliminate the problem of testing negative one day and then developing symptoms several days later.  An early detection test before boarding, along with the requirement of masks while waiting for results, would work well.

Edited May 26, 2020 by TNcruising02

[donaldsc]

On 5/23/2020 at 3:22 PM, 2wheelin said:

I don’t know what chart you are reading but the one presented shows no such correlations (although there is one). It does show that Sweden has a diabetes rate which is 53% of the obesity rate while the US has only a 23% diabetes rate compared to obesity. That is the point I made about healthier obese. 

There is a correlation between obesity and diabetes but clearly it is a very different correlation between the two countries. Further, not all people with diabetes are obese which further confounds the data when you only look at a few statistics as in your graph. My point was that the US obese could be healthier—as a group—than those in Sweden. They have half the incidence of diabetes as compared to obesity.

I am not the one who drew the incorrect conclusion from the chart.

 

This is a general comment and not specifically directed to the topic on hand although it is relevant.  A number of people in this thread have talked about correlations between one health parameter and another.  The correlation coefficient or r value is usually used to determine if there is a relationship between 2 parameters.  I found this chart and there are a lot of others on the WEB that we can use to determine if there is a valid relationship between parameter 1 and parameter 2

 

 As a rule of thumb, for absolute value of r:

0.00-0.19: very weak

0.20-0.39: weak

0.40-0.59: moderate 

0.60-0.79: strong

0.80-1.00: very strong.

 

There is a problem with this however.  A high r value does not always show causality between the 2 parameters.

 

Consider this WEB site - http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations.  For example, the r value for comparing US spending on science and suicides by hanging is 0.997.  The r value for comparing iPhone sales and people who died falling down stairs is 0.994.  The correlation coefficient between divorce rate in Maine and per capita consumption of margarine is 0.992.  

 

Obviously, these are ridiculous comparisons and there is clearly a known causal relationship between obesity and diabetes but just don't believe people when they say that event A occurred because of the fact the event B occurred.  You need to drill down through the data to see if it makes any sense.  

 

DON

[BruceMuzz]

4 hours ago, TNcruising02 said:

 

I'll bet New York took a big hit because so many people use public transportation like the subways.  Hopefully, there will be a quick covid test for cruising.  There are groups working on early detection tests, which would eliminate the problem of testing negative one day and then developing symptoms several days later.  An early detection test before boarding, along with the requirement of masks while waiting for results, would work well.

Tokyo has far more people and far more subways than New York. Yet Tokyo has very few Covid cases and even fewer deaths.

Your correlation does not stand up.

Edited May 26, 2020 by BruceMuzz

[John Bull]

8 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

This is a general comment and not specifically directed to the topic on hand although it is relevant.  A number of people in this thread have talked about correlations between one health parameter and another.  The correlation coefficient or r value is usually used to determine if there is a relationship between 2 parameters.  I found this chart and there are a lot of others on the WEB that we can use to determine if there is a valid relationship between parameter 1 and parameter 2

 

 As a rule of thumb, for absolute value of r:

0.00-0.19: very weak

0.20-0.39: weak

0.40-0.59: moderate 

0.60-0.79: strong

0.80-1.00: very strong.

 

There is a problem with this however.  A high r value does not always show causality between the 2 parameters.

 

Consider this WEB site - http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations.  For example, the r value for comparing US spending on science and suicides by hanging is 0.997.  The r value for comparing iPhone sales and people who died falling down stairs is 0.994.  The correlation coefficient between divorce rate in Maine and per capita consumption of margarine is 0.992.  

 

Obviously, these are ridiculous comparisons and there is clearly a known causal relationship between obesity and diabetes but just don't believe people when they say that event A occurred because of the fact the event B occurred.  You need to drill down through the data to see if it makes any sense.  

 

DON

 

Hi, Donald,

 

Your post has left me totally confused. 

Is the "R" value a different animal in the USA?

 

In Europe the "R" value has nothing to do with health parameters or comparisons, it is only to do with infection reproduction rates (hence the "R").

Before lock-down measures, social distancing etc, one person might infect as many as, say, 5 others (an "R" figure of 5). Those six each go on to infect 5 more - that's now 30 people who each go on to infect five more making it 150, then 750, then 3.750, then 18.750 etc. That's the sort of infection rate we saw throughout the world, including China, Europe & the USA at the start of their pandemic - the numbers doubling every 3 days.

Preventing any spread is impossible once the numbers get so high, but countries set their measures to reduce the spread to a factor below 1.0 (ie one person infects one more), which keeps the spread manageable. 

So an "R" factor of up to 0.5 is excellent, and any factor below 1.0 is acceptable because it sees the infection rate drop. This doesn't tally with the figures in your post, nor do diabetes or obesity or other factors which make the risk of death greater for some folk - it refers only to the speed of the spread.

 

Hence my asking if the "R" rate in the USA mean something completely different? 

 

JB 

[d9704011]

22 minutes ago, John Bull said:

 

Hi, Donald,

 

Your post has left me totally confused. 

Is the "R" value a different animal in the USA?

 

In Europe the "R" value has nothing to do with health parameters or comparisons, it is only to do with infection reproduction rates (hence the "R").

Before lock-down measures, social distancing etc, one person might infect as many as, say, 5 others (an "R" figure of 5). Those six each go on to infect 5 more - that's now 30 people who each go on to infect five more making it 150, then 750, then 3.750, then 18.750 etc. That's the sort of infection rate we saw throughout the world, including China, Europe & the USA at the start of their pandemic - the numbers doubling every 3 days.

Preventing any spread is impossible once the numbers get so high, but countries set their measures to reduce the spread to a factor below 1.0 (ie one person infects one more), which keeps the spread manageable. 

So an "R" factor of up to 0.5 is excellent, and any factor below 1.0 is acceptable because it sees the infection rate drop. This doesn't tally with the figures in your post, nor do diabetes or obesity or other factors which make the risk of death greater for some folk - it refers only to the speed of the spread.

 

Hence my asking if the "R" rate in the USA mean something completely different? 

 

JB 

donaldsc’s post has nothing much to do with the R value of a virus.  He is talking about the correlation coefficient which is often used in data/statistical analysis.  The R value you are looking at is the basic reproduction number and your understanding of what it is and how it’s calculated is sound.... it’s done the same way everywhere.

 

A good example of a correlation number and how it has nothing to do with causation is: when it rains, most people use an umbrella.  Therefore the correlation between it is raining and the use of umbrellas is near 1.0.  Of course, the use of an umbrella does not cause rain.

Edited May 26, 2020 by d9704011

[John Bull]

27 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

donaldsc’s post has nothing much to do with the R value of a virus.  He is talking about the correlation coefficient which is often used in data/statistical analysis.  The R value you are looking at is the basic reproduction number and your understanding of what it is and how it’s calculated is sound.... it’s done the same way everywhere.

 

A good example of a correlation number and how it has nothing to do with causation is: when it rains, most people use an umbrella.  Therefore the correlation between it is raining and the use of umbrellas is near 1.0.  Of course, the use of an umbrella does not cause rain.

 

Thanks for that - I'd been thinking it was a different "R", but I'd never come across correlation coefficients.

My confusion now resolved.

 

JB 

[Luckiestmanonearth]

6 hours ago, BruceMuzz said:

Tokyo has far more people and far more subways than New York. Yet Tokyo has very few Covid cases and even fewer deaths.

Your correlation does not stand up.

In most Asian countries , if one doesn’t feel well, one wears a mask to help prevent spread of the illness.  This has been the norm for many many years.  They seem to care more about preventing infectious disease spread than what people think about their appearance .

 

I pray that the USA will get to that point someday and stop the vanity.

 

I realize now, during the pandemic, that many people wear masks (Not all but many).  But when this all blows over , we’re more apt as a society to go back to the way things were.  We have a lot to learn from Asians about caring for your fellow man.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Luckiestmanonearth

[2wheelin]

12 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

This is a general comment and not specifically directed to the topic on hand although it is relevant.  A number of people in this thread have talked about correlations between one health parameter and another.  The correlation coefficient or r value is usually used to determine if there is a relationship between 2 parameters.  I found this chart and there are a lot of others on the WEB that we can use to determine if there is a valid relationship between parameter 1 and parameter 2

 

 As a rule of thumb, for absolute value of r:

0.00-0.19: very weak

0.20-0.39: weak

0.40-0.59: moderate 

0.60-0.79: strong

0.80-1.00: very strong.

 

There is a problem with this however.  A high r value does not always show causality between the 2 parameters.

 

Consider this WEB site - http://tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations.  For example, the r value for comparing US spending on science and suicides by hanging is 0.997.  The r value for comparing iPhone sales and people who died falling down stairs is 0.994.  The correlation coefficient between divorce rate in Maine and per capita consumption of margarine is 0.992.  

 

Obviously, these are ridiculous comparisons and there is clearly a known causal relationship between obesity and diabetes but just don't believe people when they say that event A occurred because of the fact the event B occurred.  You need to drill down through the data to see if it makes any sense.  

 

DON

Thanks for breaking this down for those who do not consider the difference between coincidence and correlation.  That is why I responded with comparison of one rate to another without claims of either. One could also conclude from that chart that speaking Swedish lowers the obesity rate—thus your chances of getting diabetes.

[mammajamma2013]

Never mind. My reply sounded snarky when I re-read it, although it actually wasn't written with that intent.

Edited June 6, 2020 by mammajamma2013

[ldubs]

On 5/26/2020 at 3:20 AM, d9704011 said:

  Of course, the use of an umbrella does not cause rain.

 

In my case it only rains when I forget the umbrella.  😄

 

I haven't read all the posts, but too the topic --  I think temp checks indicate elevated temps and a potential issue (not necessarily CV-19).   What is done with that info is what is important.  Perhaps a follow up by a med professional is a good idea if someone has a fever.   

Edited June 6, 2020 by ldubs

[d9704011]

15 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

In my case it only rains when I forget the umbrella.  😄

 

I haven't read all the posts, but too the topic --  I think temp checks indicate elevated temps and a potential issue (not necessarily CV-19).   What is done with that info is what is important.  Perhaps a follow up by a med professional is a good idea if someone has a fever.   

There’s probably a well-funded study on the whole rain/umbrella issue going on somewhere.

 

I guess the conversation here has to do with temperature checks using those hand-held ‘guns’.  I recall docking in Tianjin, China on a warm day and having to wait on an enclosed bridge to get through the immigration control.  They were using infrared scanners to detect passengers with high temperatures.  I was pulled aside and there was a brief period of time when I thought I’d be denied entry.  Eventually, my body temperature lowered in the air conditioned waiting area and I was cleared; of course there was nothing wrong with me.  My point is that the use of these while well-meaning may cause substantial and needless difficulties and delays at many choke points around the ships and port facilities.  I, for one, am not interested in participating in travel where temperature checks are used to assess whether somebody may be ill or not.... just too many variables.

Edited June 6, 2020 by d9704011

[ldubs]

46 minutes ago, d9704011 said:

There’s probably a well-funded study on the whole rain/umbrella issue going on somewhere.

 

I guess the conversation here has to do with temperature checks using those hand-held ‘guns’.  I recall docking in Tianjin, China on a warm day and having to wait on an enclosed bridge to get through the immigration control.  They were using infrared scanners to detect passengers with high temperatures.  I was pulled aside and there was a brief period of time when I thought I’d be denied entry.  Eventually, my body temperature lowered in the air conditioned waiting area and I was cleared; of course there was nothing wrong with me.  My point is that the use of these while well-meaning may cause substantial and needless difficulties and delays at many choke points around the ships and port facilities.  I, for one, am not interested in participating in travel where temperature checks are used to assess whether somebody may be ill or not.... just too many variables.

 

First time I encountered the "brain gun" was in St Petersburg during the Avian flu crises.  Of course this year I've had numerous forehead scans from hotels to Doc offices.  So far they have found nothing.  I just hope they meant elevated temp's as opposed to an empty head!  😋   

 

I understand the convenience issue.  I guess to me the bottom line is how useful it would be to the health & well being of passengers.   At this point  I'm kind of on the sidelines.