Another study re the virus and cruiseships

[babs135]

Not sure how this will effect the industry, if at all.

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/coronavirus/cruise-ship-study-shows-that-80-per-cent-of-covid-19-cases-on-board-were-asymptomatic/ar-BB14Gu1H?ocid=spartandhp

[John Bull]

Thanks for the link, Babs.

But hmmmmm..............

The article says that there were 217 passengers and crew on board "the ship" as it followed Shackleton's route to Antarctica, so clearly it's a small expedition ship.

It doesn't name the ship, but the only photo (which heads the piece) is a stock photo of P&O's Arcadia (2500 pax & 866 crew) 

All of which is a great shame, because well over 3000 is a good sample size whereas 217 is way too small.

 

The Telegraph article mentions "screening for symptoms" and "temperature checking", which naturally can't detect asymptomatic carriers,  thus making a mockery of the article. 

The study from which it is taken gives a lot more detail, but still doesn't clearly say whether proper coronavirus testing was done before the ship reached Montevideo, or whether all 217 were properly tested.

Here's the study paper in full..............

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

 

What I need to know is how many folk out there are currently a risk to me.

Recent test sampling of the general population in the UK (rather than those hospitalised and health workers) suggests one in 400 is currently infected (this would include asymptomatic carriers). But that figure has an accuracy range of over 100.

Am I the only one who is confused by contradictory information & advice?

And by selective statistics?

 

JB 

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2020 by John Bull

[Kiwi Brenda]

Possibly referring to the Greg Mortimer?

[Essiesmom]

thread on Other Cruise Lines

 

 

[Roger88]

This is the thing that most of the people dont even know whether they carry the virus or not. Which means that no matter how strict will the policies be, sick people can still get on board and get other people sick who will have their symptoms vissible to others. Maybe its true and eveyone should catch it and fight just to strengthen their immune system.. who knows 

[Essiesmom]

I agree with the above.  We live in an area that has been little affected thus far, pop. about 62000 in the county and up until last week, only 45 cases.  But overnight it spiked to 62 and I think it is because they started holding a drive thru testing once a week for anyone interested, and probably picked up a lot of asymptomatics then.  We went, and are neg.  No deaths thus far in the county.  EM

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, John Bull said:

Am I the only one who is confused by contradictory information & advice?

And by selective statistics?

Yes, the only way to make this "study" of any value is to test a random sampling of the general population to see how that corresponds to whether or not the incidence of asymptomatic carriers is different.  Besides, the study really does not make any correlation between being on a cruise ship and the number of asymptomatic cases.

[Joebucks]

The more studies they do, the more they realize people had it, and didn't even know. Yet, this is the deadliest infection that we need to shut the world down from. Hmmm

[clo]

1 hour ago, Essiesmom said:

I agree with the above.  We live in an area that has been little affected thus far, pop. about 62000 in the county and up until last week, only 45 cases.  But overnight it spiked to 62 and I think it is because they started holding a drive thru testing once a week for anyone interested, and probably picked up a lot of asymptomatics then.  We went, and are neg.  No deaths thus far in the county.  EM

But didn't recent data show that up to 50% of negatives are false? I think it's going to take a long time to analyze all the data and try to figure out what it means.

[clo]

1 hour ago, Joebucks said:

The more studies they do, the more they realize people had it, and didn't even know. Yet, this is the deadliest infection that we need to shut the world down from. Hmmm

Well, with 350k dead worldwide and 100k in the US it's pretty darn deadly IMO.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, clo said:

Well, with 350k dead worldwide and 100k in the US it's pretty darn deadly IMO.

Did you forget to add “so far” to your comment?   The tally you mention was run up in about three months; infections are holding even or still on the upswing in a number of US states - and a number of other countries are just now getting hit.

[clo]

7 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Did you forget to add “so far” to your comment?   The tally you mention was run up in about three months; infections are holding even or still on the upswing in a number of US states - and a number of other countries are just now getting hit.

SO FAR! Definitely. I hope some people will question what they're reading and make an attempt to really understand. I know there are those who want it to be not as bad may be interpreting the info incorrectly.

[jocap]

Shame that the Telegraph showed a picture of Arcadia... she was in Weymouth because at the end of her world cruise there was not one single case of covid-19 on board, so she was loading her Indian crew on to another ship for the journey home. 

(The Indian Gov. relented and allowed all their citizens from P&O/Cunard virus-free ships to fly home).

[jcl410]

I read the study. The thing that stood out to me was that initially, no social distancing was utilized. They did, however,  take temperatures of every one every day.

 

The first fever showed up on the eighth day. After that, every one was quarantined, and masks were issued.

 

Between this, and the Diamond Princess it became obvious that the virus is very easy to spread. I'm waiting to see what measures the cruise lines introduce to slow the spread.

 

Aloha,

 

John