When we have been sick on a cruise - what about you?

[Blondilu]

I once got mildly seasick, other than that I have never gotten sick on a ship.  

 

I rarely get sick at home, either.  A cold every few years but that's about it.  And I don't know why as I don't take any particular precautions.   I take that back.  In the winter months if I think I've been exposed or am just not feeling "right" I ramp up the vitamins, mainly C.  And push fluids, mainly water.  

 

Maybe that's why, but when I travel I crave orange juice and drink it at least once or twice a day.

 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

14 hours ago, clo said:

Have you talked to your doctor about that? Colds are a flu virus so it seems a bit odd that you get them that way.

 

The cold virus is just part of the issue.  People's susceptibility is just as, if not more, important, since there are always cold viruses floating around.  And considering that it is not at all unusual for people to have that same experience, empiricism would posit that those temp changes adversely affect susceptibility.

[ldubs]

On 9/16/2020 at 6:31 AM, navybankerteacher said:

You really  “... research extensively medical treatments and vaccines and stay well away from them.” ?   And have concluded that annual flu shots are not a good idea?

 

I have to ask:  what sources do you research?   Do you consider the CDC, your local public health authorities, or even you own regular licensed physician —- or do you tend to rely on internet or other media “reports”?

 

A lot of research these days means finding something on the internet that supports what you already want to believe.  

 

[pc_load_letter]

sick from drinking too much.

 

We took a yoga class after drinking all morning, that was fun.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

 

My primary source is the internationally respected Cochrane Institute which sets the "gold standard" benchmark for medical testing and which establishes the testing protocols for many organisations around the world.  It is also used extensively by the NHS who consider it thus:

 

The Cochrane Library is a database of reliable evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. It is regarded as the best resource available of this type." "When should you use the Cochrane Library? "The Cochrane Library should be used when looking for the best evidence on the effectiveness of treatment and health promotion interventions. The best type of evidence comes from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). It is also a source of information on the methodology of systematic reviews. It should be used when looking for information on the effectiveness of an intervention

 

https://www.epsom-sthelier.nhs.uk/download.cfm?ver=11976

 

 

Cochrane's systematic reviews of vaccines, treatments, drugs and the like are second to none and an extremely valuable resource for everyone.

 

So when Cochrane say they have systematically reviewed Flu vaccines and concluded that they only prevent 1 person in every 71 vaccinated from getting Flu, I tend to believe them.  I have no reasons not to believe their research.  Consequently I don't bother getting Flu shots.

 

It’s fine to rely on Cochrane rather than CDC or Mayo Clinic for flu vaccine effectiveness studies - but it is important to understand what is actually there - and not cherry-pick partial (or partially understood)  data .   

 

As as I read the Cochrane Summary, the risk of flu infection was about 23 people per thousand if not immunized - and it was 9 (actually 8 to 11) people per thousand when immunized.  That works out to about a 50% effectiveness rate - rather than the blatantly absurd 1 in 71 ratio you came away with.

[2wheelin]

12 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

It’s fine to rely on Cochrane rather than CDC or Mayo Clinic for flu vaccine effectiveness studies - but it is important to understand what is actually there - and not cherry-pick partial (or partially understood)  data .   

 

As as I read the Cochrane Summary, the risk of flu infection was about 23 people per thousand if not immunized - and it was 9 (actually 8 to 11) people per thousand when immunized.  That works out to about a 50% effectiveness rate - rather than the blatantly absurd 1 in 71 ratio you came away with.

The absurdity of the 1 in 71 is about as believable as the tooth fairy. I have seen more evidence of a tooth fairy though.

As I read that reference, you are right and their authors reviewed 52 studies but only included results from 25 using inactivated influenza. The studies were from the 1969-2009 time period. Pretty suspect using that to support a reason to not vaccinate today. I don’t believe that influenza vaccine was only 1.4% effective from 1969-2009. And even if it were, that has no bearing on today when effectiveness rates vary from 50-over70%. Add to that the fact that of those vaccinated people who do become ill, the symptoms are usually less severe.

[Mich3554]

We were on 3 cruises in 2019-2020, the longest 18 days, 2 other cruises 15 days.  No bugs caught here.  Each one of those cruises entailed long flights both coming and going.  

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

   

As as I read the Cochrane Summary, the risk of flu infection was about 23 people per thousand if not immunized - and it was 9 (actually 8 to 11) people per thousand when immunized.  That works out to about a 50% effectiveness rate - rather than the blatantly absurd 1 in 71 ratio you came away with.

 

Interesting. I would hope that this year's flu case count will be lower because of all the CV precautions.  With all of the preventive steps we have taken, the CV case rate is about 21 per thousand.   I would hate to think what it would have been if we had done nothing.   I would love to see the CV case rate reduced to 8 or 9 per thousand.  

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

44 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

Interesting. I would hope that this year's flu case count will be lower because of all the CV precautions.  With all of the preventive steps we have taken, the CV case rate is about 21 per thousand.   I would hate to think what it would have been if we had done nothing.   I would love to see the CV case rate reduced to 8 or 9 per thousand.  

 

 

Well, at first thought the COVID precautions should lead to a reduction in flu cases - there being similarities in how the two are transmitted.    Any distancing, mask wearing or increased hand washing should be expected to have a fairly wide effect.

[Gwendy]

No hard data to quote, but in Australia the rate of influenza this past Winter was reduced.  Social distancing, increased attention to hand washing, PPE in aged care, and wearing of masks seemed to be reducing the rate of infection.  

A lot of us staying home more than usual as well.