Do you want cruising to return to what it was?

[Cruzaholic41]

1 hour ago, bosslaydee said:

Please do not bully me into thinking like you. I'm very open minded to all of life's possibilities.

You’re just the latest victim. This is what I was referring to back in post 95. Anyone who doesn’t think like these select few get beaten into submission. And don’t think you’ll win. You can’t compete against someone who never logs off. 

[bosslaydee]

4 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

You’re just the latest victim. This is what I was referring to back in post 95. Anyone who doesn’t think like these select few get beaten into submission. And don’t think you’ll win. You can’t compete against someone who never logs off. 

Thank you lol You're right, I am ignoring that person. I don't have to defend my character to strangers looking for a fight.

[DaveSJ711]

17 minutes ago, Cruzaholic41 said:

You’re just the latest victim. This is what I was referring to back in post 95. Anyone who doesn’t think like these select few get beaten into submission. And don’t think you’ll win. You can’t compete against someone who never logs off. 

 

10 minutes ago, bosslaydee said:

Thank you lol You're right, I am ignoring that person. I don't have to defend my character to strangers looking for a fight.

 

So sensitive.

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, bosslaydee said:

Do you know the percentage of asymptomatic cases? 

 

Asian research suggests 25% Iceland which is a country that has had the most comprehensive testing say 50%

[ldubs]

32 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Asian research suggests 25% 

 

Do you mean China? 

[ilikeanswers]

2 minutes ago, ldubs said:

Do you mean China? 

 

Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea. Haven't heard what China's numbers are. 

[ldubs]

9 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea. Haven't heard what China's numbers are. 

 

Thanks!  

[donaldsc]

13 hours ago, bosslaydee said:

Do you know the percentage of asymptomatic cases? I'm guessing no since tests aren't even frequent enough to test SYMPTOMATIC cases. So, let's stop throwing that word around like asymptomatic is a huge, definitive probability.

 

Secondly, i don't know how the states do it, but if i leave my country, the minute i return i'll have to be under 14 day quarantine. I live alone so why do you assume i'd spread anything? Please do not assume i'd willingly infect people.

 

And lastly, the most important point that was unfortunately missed; I'm considering it. I have made no plans. I have put no money down. I have time to think it over and choose a different course of action. I'd like to wait for people to go on the august cruises and come back and see how they fare. Until then, i have no set plans.
Please do not bully me into thinking like you. I'm very open minded to all of life's possibilities.

 

These are the results of a study where they tested all of the women who came into a NY hospital to deliver their babies -

 

"Between March 22 and April 4, 2020, a total of 215 pregnant women delivered infants at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center . All the women were screened on admission for symptoms of Covid-19. Four women (1.9%) had fever or other symptoms of Covid-19 on admission, and all 4 women tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of the 211 women without symptoms, all were afebrile on admission. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 210 of the 211 women (99.5%) who did not have symptoms of Covid-19; of these women, 29 (13.7%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of Covid-19 at presentation."

 

Looks like in this study, 14% of the women were asymptomatic.  

 

Here is an abstract from a paper published on the outbreak of the disease on the Greg Mortimer -

 

"We describe what we believe is the first instance of complete COVID-19 testing of all passengers and crew on an isolated cruise ship during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 217 passengers and crew on board, 128 tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription–PCR (59%). Of the COVID-19-positive patients, 19% (24) were symptomatic; 6.2% (8) required medical evacuation; 3.1% (4) were intubated and ventilated; and the mortality was 0.8% (1). The majority of COVID-19-positive patients were asymptomatic (81%, 104 patients). We conclude that the prevalence of COVID-19 on affected cruise ships is likely to be significantly underestimated, and strategies are needed to assess and monitor all passengers to prevent community transmission after disembarkation."

 

Does that sufficiently respond to my highlighted part of your post?

 

DON

[clo]

27 minutes ago, donaldsc said:

Does that sufficiently respond to my highlighted part of your post?

 

Works for me!

[bosslaydee]

2 hours ago, donaldsc said:

 

These are the results of a study where they tested all of the women who came into a NY hospital to deliver their babies -

 

"Between March 22 and April 4, 2020, a total of 215 pregnant women delivered infants at the New York–Presbyterian Allen Hospital and Columbia University Irving Medical Center . All the women were screened on admission for symptoms of Covid-19. Four women (1.9%) had fever or other symptoms of Covid-19 on admission, and all 4 women tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (Figure 1). Of the 211 women without symptoms, all were afebrile on admission. Nasopharyngeal swabs were obtained from 210 of the 211 women (99.5%) who did not have symptoms of Covid-19; of these women, 29 (13.7%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Thus, 29 of the 33 patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 at admission (87.9%) had no symptoms of Covid-19 at presentation."

 

Looks like in this study, 14% of the women were asymptomatic.  

 

Here is an abstract from a paper published on the outbreak of the disease on the Greg Mortimer -

 

"We describe what we believe is the first instance of complete COVID-19 testing of all passengers and crew on an isolated cruise ship during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 217 passengers and crew on board, 128 tested positive for COVID-19 on reverse transcription–PCR (59%). Of the COVID-19-positive patients, 19% (24) were symptomatic; 6.2% (8) required medical evacuation; 3.1% (4) were intubated and ventilated; and the mortality was 0.8% (1). The majority of COVID-19-positive patients were asymptomatic (81%, 104 patients). We conclude that the prevalence of COVID-19 on affected cruise ships is likely to be significantly underestimated, and strategies are needed to assess and monitor all passengers to prevent community transmission after disembarkation."

 

Does that sufficiently respond to my highlighted part of your post?

 

DON

Good to know, thanks for sharing. Could you share the link for these studies?

[iancal]

Absolutely no interest in formal nights,  Baked Alaska parades, napkin waving, etc. etc.   Just want a comfortable cruise with reasonable food and good service.  

 

No interest in cruising until covid is beaten.  Not desperate enough to take a chance with our health nor are interested in distancing, face masks etc.   Besides,  a pause in cruising is not the end of the world for us.  Just thankful that so far we have avoided covid.

 

I suspect that it will be a new ball game when cruising does return.

Edited June 4, 2020 by iancal

[mnocket]

 

On 6/2/2020 at 11:47 AM, bosslaydee said:

Not everyone dies from covid. And the ones who do (elderly and immunocompromised) should stay home.
 

 

17 hours ago, clo said:

I guess you've not kept up with the latest data. 30+% of patient are between 20 and 40. And more and more children are getting the wicked version. Oh, right, and one can be asymptomatic and contagious. Sounds to me like everyone should stay home based on that alone. Right?

 

clo, it seems you may be confused.  bosslaydee was talking about DEATHS, particularly among the old and ill.  It's true that 30% of COVID infections are in the 20 to 40 age group, but we're talking about deaths here.  As you can see when we look at the actual death rate (which was what bosslaydee was discussing) the story is very different.

 

 

I think it's clear from the above graph that bosslaydee's statement "Not everyone dies from covid. And the ones who do (elderly and immunocompromised) should stay home."  is supported by the data.  

 

As for responsibility......  I understand that some people think it is the  responsibility of the young to protect the elderly from COVID exposure, and in a perfect world perhaps this would be the case.  However, I can understand the young and healthy, who are not at substantial risk from COVID, wanting/needing to get back to normal.  I don't blame them.  Accordingly, I feel it is the responsibility of the elderly and compromised (e.g. me) to protect themselves.  The young may not socially distance, but I must.  When leaving the house, the young may wear cloth masks, or no mask at all, but I must wear a N95 or equivalent mask.  When restaurants reopen, the young can eat inside, I can't.  I think it's time we stop complaining about the young and healthy returning to normal, and start taking responsibility for protecting ourselves.  If we enter environments where social distancing is impossible (e.g. cruise ships), we are responsible for any outcome.

Edited June 4, 2020 by mnocket

[bosslaydee]

2 minutes ago, mnocket said:

Accordingly, I feel it is the responsibility of the elderly and compromised (e.g. me) to protect themselves.  The young may not socially distance, but I must.  When leaving the house, the young may wear cloth masks, or no mask at all, but I must wear a N95 or equivalent mask.  When restaurants reopen, the young can eat inside, I can't.  I think it's time we stop complaining about the young and healthy returning to normal, and start taking responsibility for protecting ourselves.  I we enter environments where social distancing is impossible (e.g. cruise ships), we are responsible for any outcome.

Thank you so so much. That has been a big part of what i've been trying to say. It's not about being "selfish" it's just taking responsibility for your best interests. Be it your own health or a loved one's at home. Not all young people have just themselves to take care of, so they have to be aware of the elderly or immunocompromised people they regularly come into contact with or take care of in acute situations. It's easy to say "People should look out for each other" but that's not reality. If you want to stay safe, you have to make your own safety happen for yourself and your family.

[ldubs]

11 minutes ago, bosslaydee said:

Thank you so so much. That has been a big part of what i've been trying to say. It's not about being "selfish" it's just taking responsibility for your best interests. Be it your own health or a loved one's at home. Not all young people have just themselves to take care of, so they have to be aware of the elderly or immunocompromised people they regularly come into contact with or take care of in acute situations. It's easy to say "People should look out for each other" but that's not reality. If you want to stay safe, you have to make your own safety happen for yourself and your family.

 

X2 on the thank you!  It seems in this "selfish" discussion the point being missed is no one is boarding a cruise ship until whatever authority of jurisdiction determines they can.  Once cruising is allowed, then it is certainly a personal choice, just like every other allowable activity.   That person with concerns about any allowable activity should stay away from that activity.  That person who feels an activity should  be forever banned should contact their representatives in congress.        

[clo]

35 minutes ago, mnocket said:

the above graph

Thanks for that and for clarifying.  Here's some more info regarding death rates:

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-the-puzzle-of-why-the-risk-of-death-is-greater-for-men-and-for-the-elderly-135176

 

40 minutes ago, iancal said:

I suspect that it will be a new ball game when cruising does return.

I agree. And I think social distancing can be done. And that masks should be required. Until such time as we truly understand the future of this virus. And perhaps the US should do as other countries have done and require self-quarantine for 14 days post-cruise.

[navybankerteacher]

35 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

X2 on the thank you!  It seems in this "selfish" discussion the point being missed is no one is boarding a cruise ship until whatever authority of jurisdiction determines they can.  Once cruising is allowed, then it is certainly a personal choice, just like every other allowable activity.   That person with concerns about any allowable activity should stay away from that activity.  That person who feels an activity should  be forever banned should contact their representatives in congress.        

As in most other ethical questions, context counts.  If COVID remains a serious threat ONLY to the very elderly, a healthy young person might appropriately decide to cruise without a vaccine available.  But he certainly should limit his post-cruise activity to avoid locations frequented by the elderly - or even agree to self quarantine if his community deems it necessary.

[clo]

8 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

As in most other ethical questions, context counts.  If COVID remains a serious threat ONLY to the very elderly, a healthy young person might appropriately decide to cruise without a vaccine available.  But he certainly should limit his post-cruise activity to avoid locations frequented by the elderly - or even agree to self quarantine if his community deems it necessary.

Our canceled cruise in March would have had us fly back into Seattle, where our daughter and her family live, and stay for two weeks.

[ldubs]

20 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

As in most other ethical questions, context counts.  If COVID remains a serious threat ONLY to the very elderly, a healthy young person might appropriately decide to cruise without a vaccine available.  But he certainly should limit his post-cruise activity to avoid locations frequented by the elderly - or even agree to self quarantine if his community deems it necessary.

 

If their health expert or other authority of jurisdiction deems it necessary, yes.  If internet forum "experts" or anyone else without qualifications deem it necessary, then no.  I'm certainly not suggesting guidelines/restrictions be ignored.  I suppose there are endless "ifs" we can throw back & forth for discussion.   But really, my point is if an activity is permitted, then it is not selfish to do that just because an at-risk person might not feel it is safe.   

[donaldsc]

5 hours ago, bosslaydee said:

Good to know, thanks for sharing. Could you share the link for these studies?

 

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316

 

https://thorax.bmj.com/content/early/2020/05/27/thoraxjnl-2020-215091

 

DON

 

 

[ilikeanswers]

5 hours ago, mnocket said:

However, I can understand the young and healthy, who are not at substantial risk from COVID, 

 

We don't know if it isn't effecting the young. A few months ago everyone believed children had no risk from the illness and now medical professionals are thinking this new kawasaki like disease could be a result from COVID19 infection. Also they are seeing former COVID19 patients being diagnosed with heart disease and kidney diseases. There is so much unknown about the long term effects of this disease so to say young people will be fine is premature. 

[DaveSJ711]

My concern isn't so much the cruise itself -- it's getting to the cruise.  This article and the accompanying comments send chills through what's left of my spine.  (Flying on American Airlines seems especially problematic.)

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/travel/coronavirus-flying-face-masks.html?algo=identity&fellback=false&imp_id=622716454&action=click&module=Smarter Living&pgtype=Homepage

Edited June 5, 2020 by DaveSJ711

[Cruzaholic41]

56 minutes ago, DaveSJ711 said:

My concern isn't so much the cruise itself -- it's getting to the cruise.  This article and the accompanying comments send chills through what's left of my spine.  (Flying on American Airlines seems especially problematic.)

 

 

Well then lock yourself in your safe room. Make sure it has WiFi so you can continue this paranoia for the next year. 

[mnocket]

16 hours ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

We don't know if it isn't effecting the young. A few months ago everyone believed children had no risk from the illness and now medical professionals are thinking this new kawasaki like disease could be a result from COVID19 infection. Also they are seeing former COVID19 patients being diagnosed with heart disease and kidney diseases. There is so much unknown about the long term effects of this disease so to say young people will be fine is premature. 

I don't think anyone said it isn't affecting the young.  What I said was that the young AND healthy are not at substantial risk from COVID,  The graph I posted clearly indicates that COVID death rate for the young (regardless of health) is much, much, much lower than for the elderly.  Is the death rate zero?  No. There's risk associated with most everything we do.  My point is simply that if you're counting on the young and healthy to abstain from returning to "normal" behavior in order to protect the elderly and compromised, your are likely to be disappointed.  The smart bet is to take personal responsibility for your own protection.

[navybankerteacher]

33 minutes ago, mnocket said:

... My point is simply that if you're counting on the young and healthy to abstain from returning to "normal" behavior in order to protect the elderly and compromised, your are likely to be disappointed.  The smart bet is to take personal responsibility for your own protection.

Taking personal responsibility could be seen as pressing for legislation requiring the “young and healthy” to be quarantined if their “normal” behavior puts other members of their community at risk.

[mnocket]

13 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Taking personal responsibility could be seen as pressing for legislation requiring the “young and healthy” to be quarantined if their “normal” behavior puts other members of their community at risk.

I guess, advocating for a police state could be viewed by some as taking personal responsibility.  I read about a country (I think it was China?) where if you tested positive, you were required to enter quarantine in a state facility.  The government was using hotels for this purpose.  I suppose the USA could take this a step further and force anyone who failed to properly social distance into mandatory quarantine.  This isn't a solution I favor, and advocating for this type of regulation of others isn't what I consider personal responsibility, but that's just me.

Edited June 5, 2020 by mnocket