Social Distancing during Embarkation

[clo]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Amen to everything you wrote.

 

I should no longer be surprised by the arrogance and ignorance of some people. Maybe I'm no longer surprised but rather FURIOUS.

[sverigecruiser]

7 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Nope.

 

Many people who live a long distance away will sensibly travel to Southampton the night before.    They will likely stay in hotels and be required to vacate their rooms by 10am to 11am.  It would seem reasonable to give those who live far away some level of priority choice for early embarkation time.  There will also be a variety of other circumstances that people have requiring them to board at specific times.  The "algorithm" is not a simple one.  Hence I suggested that a "first come first served" approach was inappropriate.

 

.

 

But you said that people travelling from Scotland to Southampton should get an early time and then the cruiseline should decide that everyone had to  get to Southampton the night before the cruise. Some people might prefer to get there later and need a later time.

 

"First come first served" may not be a perfect solution but I don't think they easily can have a better system then that if the times shall be enforced.

 

I think that the most fair system should be if thoose paying the most should  have the best possibilities to pick the time they want. The problem with that is that then they have to save times for people booking late. Because of that I think that "first come first served'' is the best solution. 

[Gwendy]

13 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Are you suggesting that those who want to board a cruise ship at the moment - when there is no social distancing - have no brains?  Sounds right.

No not suggesting that at all.  Just saying with all the protesters in massive crowds all over the US, then lining up with a few people who have chosen to go on a cruise is probably safer.

[ldubs]

8 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

The same sources and so-called world health authorities that blatantly lied to the world about the effectiveness of wearing masks by the public.   They state what suits their agenda at the time.  They have done a complete U-Turn on the issue of wearing masks.  They will do the same on the 2m social distance measure.

 

.

 

You seem to be under some kind of impression that the social distancing was intended to be a permanent requirement.  Of course it will be discontinued.   Sooner the better.     

[clo]

37 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

You seem to be under some kind of impression that the social distancing was intended to be a permanent requirement.  Of course it will be discontinued.   Sooner the better.     

We hope. Sooner or later. After there's a vaccine.

[sverigecruiser]

3 hours ago, clo said:

We hope. Sooner or later. After there's a vaccine.

 

Maybe after there is a vaccine for some.

 

Probably before there is a vaccine available to everyone.

[ontheweb]

6 hours ago, clo said:

We hope. Sooner or later. After there's a vaccine.

But according to the most ardent gloom and doomers, the vaccine might not be nearly 100% effective. And there are many who will not take the vaccine. And the virus might mutate and the vaccine will no longer be effective at all.

[ldubs]

Social distancing/SIP rules are already being relaxed based on the various indicators health experts use to monitor the pandemic.  Today people are allowed to go back to work in my county.  Social gathering as deemed safe.  There are still some restrictions.  

[mnocket]

7 hours ago, ontheweb said:

But according to the most ardent gloom and doomers, the vaccine might not be nearly 100% effective. And there are many who will not take the vaccine. And the virus might mutate and the vaccine will no longer be effective at all.

Quite correct.  It is highly unlikely that any eventual vaccine will be anywhere close to 100% effective against COVID.  Influenza still remains a problem despite the availability of a vaccine, and COVID will still remain a problem once a vaccine is available.  The hope is that a vaccine will reduce the risk associated with COVID to an "acceptable" level - just as other vaccines have done for their targeted illnesses. The threat (risk) of COVID will not be eliminated.  It hopefully will be reduced.  Will the post-vaccine risk be "acceptable"?  That's an individual judgement each of us will have to make.

[SRF]

On 6/2/2020 at 12:44 PM, ontheweb said:

Since you flew in, how do you stay in your vehicle.?

 

And if it is either beastly hot or possibly raining outside, don't you think everyone will want to get inside and then there is a crowd?

 

Did you walk to the terminal????
 

Hmm, it is called AIR CONDITIONING.  And now days it comes standard on most cars.

 

And for the rain, just don't open the sun roof. 😄

[SRF]

On 6/2/2020 at 1:49 PM, KnowTheScore said:

 

They've been shown to be much less effective than that. 

 

No, they are quite effective against the strains you have been vaccinated for.

 

The problem is, there are MANY strains.  And they pick the 3 most likely for the annual vaccine.

 

Sometimes they get it right, and sometimes they miss.

[RocketMan275]

22 hours ago, jocap said:

People arriving at the wrong time on our last cruises from Southampton were given a coloured card, and had to wait until the queue for the correct time had ended. 

And, where did these people wait?  Was there an area where social distancing could be enforced?

[RocketMan275]

15 hours ago, clo said:

We hope. Sooner or later. After there's a vaccine.

Did we ever develop a vaccine for the Spanish Flu?

Wasn't the Spanish Flu far more devastating than this virus?

There may never be a vaccine for this virus.  It may be something we learn to live with.

[jocap]

1 hour ago, RocketMan275 said:

And, where did these people wait?  Was there an area where social distancing could be enforced?

No, they merely sat in the terminal hall and waited... social distancing would be very difficult because of the large flow of people arriving at their correct time.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, SRF said:

 

Did you walk to the terminal????
 

Hmm, it is called AIR CONDITIONING.  And now days it comes standard on most cars.

 

And for the rain, just don't open the sun roof. 😄

After you flew in you may have walked to the terminal. Or maybe you took a cab. Or maybe you took a cruise line transfer. Or maybe you took some other form of public transportation.

 

Anyway your car that you want to sit in is back at your home airport.

 

[ldubs]

16 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Maybe after there is a vaccine for some.

 

Probably before there is a vaccine available to everyone.

 

I would say SIP should be discontinued when the medical experts say it should.   Someone threw out some figures on the number of new cases over the past couple of weeks in California and implying it was the result of relaxing SIP.   They probably did not know that the number of tests/day increased dramatically during that same period.      

[sverigecruiser]

3 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

I would say SIP should be discontinued when the medical experts say it should.   Someone threw out some figures on the number of new cases over the past couple of weeks in California and implying it was the result of relaxing SIP.   They probably did not know that the number of tests/day increased dramatically during that same period.      

 

If more testing mean more cases, which it obviously does, more cases is a good thing as long as the people having it has mild or none symptoms! (If you are immune once you had it which we may not know yet.) 

 

Can more testing mean less cases? I have been told that reported cases in the US is not confirmed cases from laboratorier but cases based on something else. Is that correct?  

[ldubs]

22 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

If more testing mean more cases, which it obviously does, more cases is a good thing as long as the people having it has mild or none symptoms! (If you are immune once you had it which we may not know yet.) 

 

Can more testing mean less cases? I have been told that reported cases in the US is not confirmed cases from laboratorier but cases based on something else. Is that correct?  

 

You ask some great questions.  My honest answer is I don't know.   I've heard the same reports as you about counts not always being confirmed by test results as well as purposely inflated counts.  I personally suspect it did happen but how extensive it was I don't know.   To the extent there is miscounting,  I suspect it is less of an issue now because testing has ramped up so much.  Certainly the decision-making process is enhanced with more testing.  

 

I recently read about one of our counties experiencing a 33% increase in cases in one week.  Pretty scary.   Turns out almost all were from an outbreak among prison inmates.   That doesn't make it OK, but it is important to consider everything before just reacting to a number.   

[clo]

10 hours ago, ldubs said:

Turns out almost all were from an outbreak among prison inmates.  

Is that in Sonoma? 

[CruiserBruce]

5 hours ago, clo said:

Is that in Sonoma? 

Seriously doubt it, as Sonoma just announced their first case in the county jail yesterday. 

[CruiserBruce]

16 hours ago, ldubs said:

 

You ask some great questions.  My honest answer is I don't know.   I've heard the same reports as you about counts not always being confirmed by test results as well as purposely inflated counts.  I personally suspect it did happen but how extensive it was I don't know.   To the extent there is miscounting,  I suspect it is less of an issue now because testing has ramped up so much.  Certainly the decision-making process is enhanced with more testing.  

 

I recently read about one of our counties experiencing a 33% increase in cases in one week.  Pretty scary.   Turns out almost all were from an outbreak among prison inmates.   That doesn't make it OK, but it is important to consider everything before just reacting to a number.   

The real important statistic is percentages positive out of tests. It's not important how many new cases, rather it percent of positives in any number of tests. California has been saying 8% testing positive is a redline. Last I heard statewide we were averaging 4-5% new positives.

[ldubs]

9 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

The real important statistic is percentages positive out of tests. It's not important how many new cases, rather it percent of positives in any number of tests. California has been saying 8% testing positive is a redline. Last I heard statewide we were averaging 4-5% new positives.

 

Thanks CruiserBruce.  

 

One thing that I continue to be a little confused about is who should be tested.  I know early on test resources were limited and rationed to those with symptoms.   Now testing is more available.  One of the decision indicators used is number of tests conducted.  Seems more tests are better but then our State's public health website still says not to go for a test unless advised by a doctor.   

[CruiserBruce]

25 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Thanks CruiserBruce.  

 

One thing that I continue to be a little confused about is who should be tested.  I know early on test resources were limited and rationed to those with symptoms.   Now testing is more available.  One of the decision indicators used is number of tests conducted.  Seems more tests are better but then our State's public health website still says not to go for a test unless advised by a doctor.   

What you are touching on is correct. Early on, with limited testing, the percentage of positives was high, and the critical issue was really the number of tests available. But now, with far more tests available, the percentage of positives SHOULD be dropping. If it's not, we have a far more serious problem. 

 

But that also highlights the crazy philosophy of "let's not do tests, because it just gives us more cases".

[clo]

50 minutes ago, CruiserBruce said:

But that also highlights the crazy philosophy of "let's not do tests, because it just gives us more cases".

Did anyone say that other than the current president of the US?

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, CruiserBruce said:

What you are touching on is correct. Early on, with limited testing, the percentage of positives was high, and the critical issue was really the number of tests available. But now, with far more tests available, the percentage of positives SHOULD be dropping. If it's not, we have a far more serious problem. 

 

But that also highlights the crazy philosophy of "let's not do tests, because it just gives us more cases".

 

Thanks again -- informative.   I just checked my county's website and in fact  it encourages everyone to get tested to provide a better picture of what is happening.  I should have gone there first.   

 

About the last, well I understand what he was driving at but talk about another foot in mouth moment.