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

[2wheelin]

5 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

Yeah, your sample size of 3 is more relevant than a sample size of thousands.

But now with high volume testing, we have sample sizes of thousands. Testing has been expanded to people with no symptoms and many are positive. What is not know is how infective they are to others.

[ilikeanswers]

9 hours ago, ed01106 said:

Your point?  

 

There are people so selfish they will try to circumvent basic decency.  These people need to be rooted out not encouraged.  

 

My point was if it cannot be proven then it cannot be enforced so what is the point of making it a law. It would be pretty useless.

 

7 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

10 degrees C up or down - sounds awfully wide.  Are you sure you read it right?

 

I didn't read it in the article it was what the health advisor said in an interview. And if you think about when has a doctor used a thermometer gun to check your temperature? If the technology was that great they would probably be using them as they would save money on all the disposal parts they have to buy. 

[ldubs]

I don't know.  If a forehead scan indicates a fever, perhaps additional screening is needed, meaning a more accurate method to confirm the fever.  I would be more concerned that someone with fever would slip through.  And, even more concerned that someone who knows they are running a fever would try to hide it.  I mean, who runs a 101 temp and doesn't know it.   Maybe this forehead gun is far from foolproof but still an indicator that provides some prevention.  

[mayleeman]

On 6/19/2020 at 3:15 PM, TheOldBear said:

Right asymptomatic ; no fever, coughing, sneezing - what risks to they present of infecting other folks in casual situations? 

 

A guy in California who tested positive had no symptoms so, like you, he thought he could not infect anyone. So he went to a BBQ party without telling anyone and infected 12 people. AND KILLED ONE OF HIS FRIENDS.

 

The virus spreads through breathing. And the risk is killing someone. This is not hard.

 

https://www.the-sun.com/news/us-news/1072204/truck-driver-covid-party/

[slidergirl]

Doing a temperature check is no more useful than going through a TSA checkpoint - purely theater to make the public "feel safe"    with providing no actual benefit.  You know you have a fever but you still want to cruise - you pop Tylenol, put a cooling wrap around your neck.  Take it as far as taking your own temp and waiting until it's "within range" before you head to board.   Besides, if you are pre-symptomatic, you are not going to have a fever or a cough, anyway.  Pure theater. 

[navybankerteacher]

There is so much “pure theatre” going on now.  The notion of getting tested even when you have no symptoms seems to be catching on-  but when thought through, it represents a massive overload on testing capability.  

 

Sure - if you test positive (still a small minority of the population) - you would know something—- but what would you then do?   If you do not have a clear answer, ask yourself what you would do?

 

Then, if you test negative - how long would you wait before being tested again?  If it makes sense today to get tested without having symptoms why won’t it make sense to get tested tomorrow?  - And then the next day , and the next.

 

Absent symptoms - or REASONABLE belief that you have been exposed - there is no valid reason to get tested.

 

 

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, slidergirl said:

Doing a temperature check is no more useful than going through a TSA checkpoint - purely theater to make the public "feel safe"    with providing no actual benefit.  You know you have a fever but you still want to cruise - you pop Tylenol, put a cooling wrap around your neck.  Take it as far as taking your own temp and waiting until it's "within range" before you head to board.   Besides, if you are pre-symptomatic, you are not going to have a fever or a cough, anyway.  Pure theater. 

And yet there is no movement to tamp down anything that the TSA does that only serves as pure theater.

[lenquixote66]

Do you ever think that this is just a dream because it really could not be true ?

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

There is so much “pure theatre” going on now.  The notion of getting tested even when you have no symptoms seems to be catching on-  but when thought through, it represents a massive overload on testing capability.  

 

 

 

My county's public health officials are encouraging everyone to get tested because more test data provides a better picture for handling the emergency.   Multiple test stations were created for just that purpose.  And of course, this does not mean that priority groups are not tested at appropriate intervals.  

 

I'm not sure where you are hearing testing should be limited to only those with symptoms.  That should only be done when testing facilities are lacking, which this far along would likely mean someone has dropped the ball.  

[ldubs]

4 hours ago, slidergirl said:

Doing a temperature check is no more useful than going through a TSA checkpoint - purely theater to make the public "feel safe"    with providing no actual benefit.  You know you have a fever but you still want to cruise - you pop Tylenol, put a cooling wrap around your neck.  Take it as far as taking your own temp and waiting until it's "within range" before you head to board.   Besides, if you are pre-symptomatic, you are not going to have a fever or a cough, anyway.  Pure theater. 

 

I'm going to guess you have never been near TSA checkpoint when someone had a handgun or other weapon in their check-in bag.   

[navybankerteacher]

21 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

My county's public health officials are encouraging everyone to get tested because more test data provides a better picture for handling the emergency.   Multiple test stations were created for just that purpose.  And of course, this does not mean that priority groups are not tested at appropriate intervals.  

 

I'm not sure where you are hearing testing should be limited to only those with symptoms.  That should only be done when testing facilities are lacking, which this far along would likely mean someone has dropped the ball.  

Please advise how often a person without symptoms should get tested.  The test you take today will not reflect anything you might pick up tomorrow.  So, if you believe you should get tested today - just because “everyone” should get tested - and come up negative shouldn’t you still want to get tested tomorrow -or next week at the latest?  After all. - if it is appropriate to be tested today, why would it not be appropriate to be tested every day?

[ldubs]

44 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Please advise how often a person without symptoms should get tested.  The test you take today will not reflect anything you might pick up tomorrow.  So, if you believe you should get tested today - just because “everyone” should get tested - and come up negative shouldn’t you still want to get tested tomorrow -or next week at the latest?  After all. - if it is appropriate to be tested today, why would it not be appropriate to be tested every day?

 

How often should you get tested?  I have no idea other than it will vary depending on a person's exposure.   Ask your local public health official and be guided accordingly.   And if at this point you really don't know what to do if you test positive, then you really need to contact your health hotline.  

 

What I believe is what my local health expert says.  Not what some guy on a forum says about testing being a waste of time when someone doesn't have symptoms.  

 

The following is from my County Health Dept:

 

"Widespread testing provides a more accurate picture of how many cases exist in our community and helps us understand how and where the virus is spreading. Testing helps identify people without symptoms who could be spreading COVID-19 so that they can stay away from work and public places until their infectious period is over."

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bigrednole]

15 hours ago, mayleeman said:

 

A guy in California who tested positive had no symptoms so, like you, he thought he could not infect anyone. So he went to a BBQ party without telling anyone and infected 12 people. AND KILLED ONE OF HIS FRIENDS.

There is no telling where those 12 people were infected. Were all 12 of those people tested minutes before attending the party? No. It is more likely that many of those 12 already had it as well, didn't know, and the one that died could have attracted it from anywhere. This is an airborne virus. If you have received mail, left your house, went to a grocery store, used cash, ATM or credit card, you have been exposed to it over 100,000x. 

[cruisemom42]

4 hours ago, bigrednole said:

There is no telling where those 12 people were infected. Were all 12 of those people tested minutes before attending the party? No. It is more likely that many of those 12 already had it as well, didn't know, and the one that died could have attracted it from anywhere. This is an airborne virus. If you have received mail, left your house, went to a grocery store, used cash, ATM or credit card, you have been exposed to it over 100,000x. 

 

Exposed over 100,000 times? Where in the world is that figure coming from?

 

(And for the record, the chance of anyone contracting the virus from handling of objects such as mail is extremely low:  https://www.livescience.com/cdc-coronavirus-surfaces-update.html)

 

If you are going to make claims, it helps to cite a source.

[mayleeman]

4 hours ago, bigrednole said:

It is more likely that many of those 12 already had it as well, didn't know, and the one that died could have attracted it from anywhere.

 

"More likely"???

 

Absurd probability theory here. But, ironically, your suspicion of 12 asymptomatic (or presymptomatic) carriers all happening to attend the very same event would be a compelling reason to be more careful, not less. You, like they, are downplaying the risk--killing someone. Thanks for emphasizing our point.

 

 

Edited July 6, 2020 by mayleeman

[TNcruising02]

If someone attends an event with 12 other people, that is the person's choice to possibly expose themselves to a virus.  It's up to each person to decide for themselves and keep their distance.  If that person contracts the virus, it was because of their own  actions.  Nobody else is responsible for killing them.  People need to accept personal responsibility and social distancing.

If my dad attends a party and contracts the virus, it would not be anyone else's fault.

Edited July 6, 2020 by TNcruising02

[cruisemom42]

41 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

If someone attends an event with 12 other people, that is the person's choice to possibly expose themselves to a virus.  It's up to each person to decide for themselves and keep their distance.  If that person contracts the virus, it was because of their own  actions.  Nobody else is responsible for killing them.  People need to accept personal responsibility and social distancing.

If my dad attends a party and contracts the virus, it would not be anyone else's fault.

 

I think the point to be made here is rather:  If your dad attends a party, contracts the virus and then dies, and it turns out that one of his friends could have prevented passing the virus to him by wearing a mask, wouldn't that friend feel guilty?

 

Don't be that "friend"....

[TNcruising02]

40 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I think the point to be made here is rather:  If your dad attends a party, contracts the virus and then dies, and it turns out that one of his friends could have prevented passing the virus to him by wearing a mask, wouldn't that friend feel guilty?

 

Don't be that "friend"....

But it's up to my dad to keep himself safe.  Unless a person knows every place another person has been in the past two weeks, it's best to keep your distance.  People should protect themselves and not blame the actions of others.  Anyone who is high risk should avoid contact and not just hope another person doesn't have the virus.  Better to assume everyone has the virus and keep your distance.

Edited July 6, 2020 by TNcruising02

[cruisemom42]

5 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

But it's up to my dad to keep himself safe.  Unless a person knows every place another person has been in the past two weeks, it's best to keep your distance.  People should protect themselves and not blame the actions of others.  Anyone who is high risk should avoid contact and not just hope another person doesn't have the virus.  Better to assume everyone has the virus and keep your distance.

 

....so if this continues for months or even years, your dad should not ever go anywhere, including seeing family members that do not live with him?

 

Because that is the only way he can keep himself completely safe, as of now.

 

 

[mayleeman]

4 minutes ago, TNcruising02 said:

But it's up to my dad to keep himself safe.  Unless a person knows every place another person has been in the past two weeks, it's best to keep your distance.  People should protect themselves and not blame the actions of others.  Anyone who is high risk should avoid contact and not just hope another person doesn't have the virus.  Better to assume everyone has the virus and keep your distance.

 

The guy in the article did not blame his friend. His video before he died admitted he was stupid. That does not absolve the virus-positive friend from his own responsibility to act intelligently.

 

If a drunk drives into your lane, and you die when your car flips, you might be responsible for not wearing your seatbelt that could have saved your life. But the drunk killed you. 

[TNcruising02]

1 minute ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

....so if this continues for months or even years, your dad should not ever go anywhere, including seeing family members that do not live with him?

 

Because that is the only way he can keep himself completely safe, as of now.

 

 

Yes.  He doesn't get near any of us.  He is extremely high risk and knows the virus can kill him.  He hasn't hugged anyone or had any physical contact.  He has enough common sense not to attend parties where someone could have the virus and not even know it.

[TNcruising02]

2 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

 

The guy in the article did not blame his friend. His video before he died admitted he was stupid. That does not absolve the virus-positive friend from his own responsibility to act intelligently.

 

If a drunk drives into your lane, and you die when your car flips, you might be responsible for not wearing your seatbelt that could have saved your life. But the drunk killed you. 

If you know there are drunk drivers on the road at a specific time, avoid driving at that time.  Don't just drive and hope for the best.  Anyone who attends a group event and does not keep their distance, is knowingly putting themselves at risk.  When did personal responsibility end?

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

When did personal responsibility end?

 

Some things are only effective if people work together. There is such a thing as social responsibilty and being aware there are people in you community who are vulnerable so maybe we should look out for them instead of telling them too bad so sad I'll do whatever I want and you will just have to suck it up. When did kindness end😔?

Edited July 6, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[Hlitner]

The concept of "personal responsibility" seems to be lost to many folks.  I understand, as a senior with some medical conditions, that COVID-19 puts me at relatively high risk.  So it is up to me to determine how much risk I am willing to take.  I do not expect the government to hold my hand, tell me what to do, what not to do, etc.  I do expect the government to keep  me informed of the latest recommendations (and why).

 

This virus thing is not going away soon and a safe/effective vaccine is still a question mark as to if and when.  Until that time, which could be years, each of us needs to determine our own situation and risk tolerance.   Personally, DW and I have decided to accept some risk and live our lives.  To us this means acting reasonably and intelligently and doing our best to minimize our own risk while still having a life.  While we are willing to accept some risk so that we can resume various activities and travel, this does not mean being reckless and stupid.  You will not find us crammed into a crowded bar, but you might find us in a restaurant that has reasonable precautions in place.  We will be on the beach, but will not be sitting in a crowd (or within a few feet of other folks).  As to being on a cruise ship, we are still assessing the risk and will wait and see what the cruise lines propose as a reasonable method of operations.

 

Hank

[mayleeman]

I am sure all of you "personal responsibility" would then feel it is perfectly ok for someone quaratined in their cabin for noro to wander around the ship. After all, anyone who catches it assumed the risk..Nope, not the fault of the carrier.