Should Coronavirus Vaccination be Mandatory to Cruise?

[Toofarfromthesea]

3 hours ago, clo said:

I think you meant to reply to @cruisemom42 . I was just admiring her creativity.

 

Nope, you. Admiring someone's creativity in hating is no different.  

[SelectSys]

Nothing about cruising infringes upon individual liberty or freedom.  Remember, cruising is strictly voluntary activity and entirely unnecessary.  All businesses should have the right to put in contract terms that help limit their liability and improve their service delivery.  As such, I see nothing wrong or discriminatory in putting in a vaccination requirement to cruise.   

 

Note that my hope has always been that a vaccine will be available to provide additional confidence (not 100%) that I am taking care of myself while on travel, including cruising.  The only thing that might change my mind on this subject would be the wide availability of a highly effective treatment coming out before an effective vaccine.  This might do the trick:

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/09/15/upmc-university-of-pittsburgh-coronavirus-drug/

 

BTW - just got my seasonal flue vaccine today. Not 100% effective, but I believe it helps as I have only gotten the flue once in the last 10 years.  That was last February when travel was still normal and I wonder if it might have been COVID.

[KnowTheScore]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

That “just 14 people in a 1000” which you dismiss as “not much at all”  works out to about 49,000,000 people when applied to the US population.  Even if we consider just the roughly half of the population which does not now get immunized, we are talking about 24,500,000 people - or, given the roughly 1% mortality rate, 24,500 human US lives per year;  not to mention the costs in treatment and lost man hours.

 

Frankly, I think you should reconsider your Cruise Critic user name.

 

 

 

I suggest you buy a new calculator.  Your numbers are out.

 

It doesn't matter what population numbers you use, the ratio is always going to the same.  A reduction of 1.4%.

 

US population is 330,052,960

 

Cochrane says that 23 in a 1000 un-vaccinated people would get flu which is  7,591,218 people

Cochrane says 9 in 1000 vaccinated would also get flu which is   2,970,476

 

The difference is just 4,620,742

 

Whilst 4.6 million may sound like a lot out of context, when pitched against a population of 330 million it really isn't many at all.  Is in fact of course just 1.4% !

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wheezedr]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

That “just 14 people in a 1000” which you dismiss as “not much at all”  works out to about 49,000,000 people when applied to the US population.  Even if we consider just the roughly half of the population which does not now get immunized, we are talking about 24,500,000 people - or, given the roughly 1% mortality rate, 24,500 human US lives per year;  not to mention the costs in treatment and lost man hours.

 

Frankly, I think you should reconsider your Cruise Critic user name.

 

 

Notwithstanding the rest of you argument, I suggest you recheck your math.  Your number is  off by a factor of 10.  14/1000 would calculate out to 4,900,000.

[KnowTheScore]

14 minutes ago, wheezedr said:

Notwithstanding the rest of you argument, I suggest you recheck your math.  Your number is  off by a factor of 10.  14/1000 would calculate out to 4,900,000.

 

How many people are you using for the population of the US???

 

1.4% of 330,052,960  is 4.6 million.    You had it at 49 million !

Edited September 21, 2020 by KnowTheScore

[2wheelin]

4 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

It's a sleight of hand misrepresentation of numbers I'm afraid.   It's actually just a reduction in percentage points of 1.4%

 

Essentially it is saying that without vaccination 23 people in every 1000 will get Flu.   With vaccination only 9 people in every 1000 will get flu.   The difference is just 14 people in a 1000 which is not much at all.

9 people get sick instead of 23. That is a 60% reduction (effectiveness).  Makes no difference if it is 9 in 1000 or 9 in 50. The reduction is the same.

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

I suggest you buy a new calculator.  Your numbers are out.

 

It doesn't matter what population numbers you use, the ratio is always going to the same.  A reduction of 1.4%.

 

US population is 330,052,960

 

Cochrane says that 23 in a 1000 un-vaccinated people would get flu which is  7,591,218 people

Cochrane says 9 in 1000 vaccinated would also get flu which is   2,970,476

 

The difference is just 4,620,742

 

Whilst 4.6 million may sound like a lot out of context, when pitched against a population of 330 million it really isn't many at all.  Is in fact of course just 1.4% !

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are very free with throwing away human lives:  that "..just 1.4%..."  -- which you acknowledge is 4,620,742 PEOPLE -- that is PEOPLE, not percentages.  And, if the reasonably expected 1% mortality rate applies, that is 46,207 DEAD PEOPLE.

 

Where did you study statistics -- which you seem to like throwing around without any comprehension of or concern about what those statistics measure?

 

Please do not bother responding.

[untailored bostonian]

On 9/19/2020 at 9:31 AM, LewiLewi said:

Today, a Yellow Fever Vaccination is required in order to cruise to regions that have Yellow Fever mosquito infections. I am wondering in the future, if a COVID-19 vaccination should be a requirement to board any cruise ship for any length of time?

I am interested in fellow cruiser’s opinions.

Once they are available for the masses they almost certainly should be required.  

 

I am booked 8-22-21 and hope to be vacinated by then. But many are going to refuse to get vacinated. Some form of rapid testing onboard and strict quarantine regiments will be needed.

 

[KnowTheScore]

9 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

You are very free with throwing away human lives:  that "..just 1.4%..."  -- which you acknowledge is 4,620,742 PEOPLE -- that is PEOPLE, not percentages.  And, if the reasonably expected 1% mortality rate applies, that is 46,207 DEAD PEOPLE.

 

Where did you study statistics -- which you seem to like throwing around without any comprehension of or concern about what those statistics measure?

 

Please do not bother responding.

 

Thanks for admitting you got your number of 49 million wrong.  A strange way to say it but thanks anyway

[mcloaked]

17 hours ago, sanger727 said:

 

So, 80% reduction in children, 40% reduction in health adults, and 60% reduction in the elderly... appears the flu shot does do something. 

 

 

There is one factor that has become more relevant in recent weeks - studies have shown during the first wave of coronavirus that some of those who became ill with covid-19 were concurrently infected with flu.  Statistics from the research showed that the risk of death for those people infected with covid-19, as well as flu at the same time, had a six times higher mortality rate. That is the reason behind the UK's big drive to try to have everyone over 50 get the flu vaccine this year. As we move into the second wave of coronavirus approaching the autumn, which is a time when the annual flu season begins to get under way, and more people spend time indoors as the weather gets colder, there is already an exponential rise in covid cases, and as case numbers rise, so hospital covid admissions will also rise in the next few weeks, and the death rate will follow suit in rising also. To help to limit the hospital admissions numbers, and the number of people who will die, it would be very helpful if as many people as possible do get their flu vaccine, before too long into the winter, and also keep distancing when in public, and do whatever every individual can to help limiting other people's exposure because none of us can know if we are infectious, unless we have a current positive swab test.  Whatever people do and whatever governments do to help, there will be more deaths this year than in a non-pandemic year.  It is easy to talk about statistics, but we should all remember that every death is a person, and someone's mother, father, brother, sister, child or best friend or other relative.  The cruise line directors and managers of course want the cruise business to survive, and it probably will, and emerge stronger than ever once the pandemic is over, and clearly there are a lot of us who have been cruising for some years, and who can't wait to get back on the ships again before too long,. but in the meantime we all have to try to survive and not become one of the death statistics, even though in percentage terms the number of deaths in a month does not look like a large number - but a small fraction of a large population is a significant number of real people.

[mcloaked]

On other consideration about covid and cruises - let's say there was a cruise where 1% of the 2000 passengers became ill and needed a hospital bed with a ventilator.  That would be 20 passengers needing an ICU bed on the ship if the ship was at sea and with nowhere to dock.  How many ICU beds does a typical ship have in its medical unit?   It is a similar consideration for populations on land - how many countries have readily available ICU beds with a ventilator, that would still have capacity over and above the non-pandemic need for ventilator beds, as well as around 1% or more of the population becoming seriously ill with covid-19.   That is the problem that countries around the world are grappling with, and trying to prevent the terrible situation that arose during the first wave in countries like Italy where doctors had to make the impossible decision about which of the patients who may be most likely to survive gets the ICU bed, and which patients should be allowed to die.  Covid-19 is not a game, and not a disease anyone would have predicted or wanted, but those in charge of countries, and companies have to try to traverse the minefield of trying to protect life, as well as trying to protect the economy - and it is one of the toughest problems the world has had to deal with in a century.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Thanks for admitting you got your number of 49 million wrong.  A strange way to say it but thanks anyway

I did ask you not to respond - but I am, unlike you, willing to acknowledge error. Yes I made a typo.  You, on the other hand repeatedly misuse statistics - which are apparently beyond your ability to understand - to support what amounts to a disregard for human life which I find disgusting.

 

Again: please do not bother responding.

[navybankerteacher]

It is becoming tiresome seeing people trying to trivialize COVID by overstating the impact of the flu.   In a very bad year the flu might cause 60,000 US deaths - while in about eight moths COVID has caused 200,000 US deaths -  and is now apparently on an upturn.   In addition, many of those flu deaths were avoidable if there was wider acceptance of the flu vaccine —- while it is not yet certain that any comparably effective COVID can be developed.

[navybankerteacher]

16 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Last count COVID deaths are 970,238 and we still have not made it to the end of the year though no doubt you have some misrepresented statisitic to say how this number is clearly wrong and that the flu is still worst. The only thing I ask: please keep your out of context quotes and ramblings short and sweet. Half the time you are just repeating yourself and it is tedious. As they say brevity is the soul of wit😉.

Against those 970,000 worldwide COVID deaths in 3/4 of a year, the flu toll worldwide is in the neighborhood of 500,000.  In the US - where statistics are likely more complete - COVID has taken 203,000 in less than nine months while the flu toll, in rare bad years, might reach 60,000 - and more usually is in the 25,000- 40,000 range.

 

One has to wonder at the sort of desperation which leads to prolonged absurd rants - I wonder if holding an equity position in cruise line stocks might explain.

[clo]

2 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

Wake up people !

 

I'm curious, do you own this site?

[Toofarfromthesea]

Another example of my point that it is easy to say follow the experts, but a lot harder to do it because there are many different experts telling us contradictory things, and if you say, 'well go with the official experts at CDC' that is no better because they seem to spend much of their time contradicting what they said before.  Latest example from just 2 days ago:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-says-coronavirus-spreads-mainly-034950288.html

 

It is also funny how people dismiss things they don't like as rants, while showing little understanding of math, orders of magnitude, of application of the smell test.  It didn't really need actual math to realize that the 49,000,000 number that popped up was absurd, just a moment of reflection.  One of the things every good math teacher (which I was) drums into students is to look at your answer and consider whether it makes sense, or is reasonable.  A number that large in that context was obviously wrong.  But unfortunately, critical thinking and mathematical literacy is in shorter and shorter supply.

Then there are the correct mechanical uses of math that fall apart logically when (mis)applied.  Yes a 60% increase is a 60% increase regardless of whether it is an increase in a 9 out of a thousand rate, or a 9 out of the 50 rate, but the import is vastly different.  I'll modify my my mortality rate example to illustrate this.  When the chances of dying are, say 2%, and some risk factor increases 25% your risk of dying increases to 2.5%, an increase of half a percent.  If the chances of dying are 40%, the same risk factor increase of 25% increases the chance of dying by 10% as opposed to the half a percent.  The effect of that percent risk increase is the same in both cases, but the end effect is far different.  This is a common trick used to color the perception of things, by using one way of measuring if you are minimizing a situation (an increase of one half of 1%) or another way to maximize a situation (25% increase!!!).  Which headline is sexier?  Chance of death increases by 25%, or Chance of death increases by one half of 1%?

Sadly we have become so mathematically illiterate (when I tell people I used to be a math teacher the most common reaction is "I hated math in school") that these kind of tricks usually work.

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, navybankerteacher said:

One has to wonder at the sort of desperation which leads to prolonged absurd rants - I wonder if holding an equity position in cruise line stocks might explain.

 

They posted a lot of cruise hating rants earlier in the year. I think they are just here to troll the pages🙄.

[donaldsc]

36 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Another example of my point that it is easy to say follow the experts, but a lot harder to do it because there are many different experts telling us contradictory things, and if you say, 'well go with the official experts at CDC' that is no better because they seem to spend much of their time contradicting what they said before.  Latest example from just 2 days ago:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-says-coronavirus-spreads-mainly-034950288.html

 

It is also funny how people dismiss things they don't like as rants, while showing little understanding of math, orders of magnitude, of application of the smell test.  It didn't really need actual math to realize that the 49,000,000 number that popped up was absurd, just a moment of reflection.  One of the things every good math teacher (which I was) drums into students is to look at your answer and consider whether it makes sense, or is reasonable.  A number that large in that context was obviously wrong.  But unfortunately, critical thinking and mathematical literacy is in shorter and shorter supply.

Then there are the correct mechanical uses of math that fall apart logically when (mis)applied.  Yes a 60% increase is a 60% increase regardless of whether it is an increase in a 9 out of a thousand rate, or a 9 out of the 50 rate, but the import is vastly different.  I'll modify my my mortality rate example to illustrate this.  When the chances of dying are, say 2%, and some risk factor increases 25% your risk of dying increases to 2.5%, an increase of half a percent.  If the chances of dying are 40%, the same risk factor increase of 25% increases the chance of dying by 10% as opposed to the half a percent.  The effect of that percent risk increase is the same in both cases, but the end effect is far different.  This is a common trick used to color the perception of things, by using one way of measuring if you are minimizing a situation (an increase of one half of 1%) or another way to maximize a situation (25% increase!!!).  Which headline is sexier?  Chance of death increases by 25%, or Chance of death increases by one half of 1%?

Sadly we have become so mathematically illiterate (when I tell people I used to be a math teacher the most common reaction is "I hated math in school") that these kind of tricks usually work.

 

There is a wonder very small but interesting book out there called "How to Lie with Statistics"

 

- https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&gclid=CjwKCAjwwab7BRBAEiwAapqpTMxO0CD0TBVhYMK1d13BYu9SLs8O4a-W2WWylL-TCt504EFK9VtFJBoClyAQAvD_BwE&hvadid=241635027273&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9052936&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=4050307822486114941&hvtargid=kwd-96237380&hydadcr=21906_10171159&keywords=how+to+lie+with+statistics&qid=1600790107&sr=8-1&tag=googhydr-20#customerReviews.

 

Everyone should read it.

 

DON

[neverbeenhere]

Statistical models and/or facts on land may not accurately relate to the facts on ships. Medical care available on ships and many of the countries that ships tend to visit may "mess" with any "facts" as we know them now.

 

As for the original OP question. No, a vaccination shouldn't be mandatory to cruise as one may have immunity built from prior infection. As for wearing formal wear while cruising, yes that should be mandatory.

[mcloaked]

3 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Flu kills up to 650,000 people globally every year and has done so for a long time.  Any comparison is relevant.  Plus:

 

"FLU has killed more people in the UK than coronavirus for seven weeks in a row, new stats reveal today.

Almost five times as many people are now dying of influenza or pneumonia than Covid-19, according to the latest data from the Office for National Statistics."

 

"In the seven weeks up to July 31, the latest date for which figures are available, 2,992 people died of coronavirus - but 6,626 died of flu or pneumonia.

 

A total of 1,002 died of influenza in the week up to June 19 - compared to 783 Covid-19 deaths.

The gap has widened each week up to the end of last month when flu killed 928 people - almost five times as many as the 193 who lost their lives to coronavirus.

 

Overall during that seven-week time frame, 6,626 people died of flu - and 2,992 died of coronavirus."

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/health-news/12374033/more-die-flu-coronavirus-seven-weeks/

 

 

 

Baseless speculation.  Lots of those 650,000 flu deaths were of people who HAD been vaccinated.

 

 

 

 

You might like to quote the figures in a month's time when the huge increase in positive cases feeds through to the delayed rise in hospital cases, and the subsequent rise in deaths.  Yes it is true that today the number of severe cases is not that high - but of the large number of people who have been infected the past few weeks, it will take a couple of weeks for those among them to reach the stage where they require hospitalisation - that is what happened in the first wave, and although treatments today are much better than they were in March/April only a small fraction of people who get the severe pneumonia will avoid death even with current best treatment.  If nothing is done and positive cases continue to rise then it is a matter of science, and not speculation that the result of pressure on hospital beds and death will follow - that is why the governments are taking action to change the rules on what people can and cannot do for the coming months - you may not believe it, but the science is there to see. Unless everyone does their own bit to prevent transmission of the virus then the outcome will be many more people suffering and dying than need be. Flu adds to the misery.  Yes we all take it for granted that we personally won't die of flu - but as you can look up the figures not everybody who gets flu survives. If you are young, and fit, the chances are you will have a miserable couple of weeks, and then get back to normal life again, but if you have underlying medical conditions, or are on the older end of the demographic spectrum, that is not necessarily the path the flu will take if you are unlucky enough to be infected.  So having the flu jab will not only reduce your own chances of getting flu, but also reduce the chance of others getting it - the more flu virus there is in circulation in society the more any one individual is likely to be infected - and the same applies to coronavirus - the difference is there is no vaccine yet for coronavirus so the  only mechanism we as a society has to limit the number of people who become severely ill and/or die is to get everyone to follow the rules that the science indicates will limit transmission.  Whether the outcome is a lot of suffering and death or less this winter will depend on what proportion of members of society have the view that their own personal choice and freedom to do as they wish as opposed to those members of society who are happy to do what they can to minimise the chance that they are personally responsible for onward spread of the virus.  In some places that personal responsibility will be widespread, but in other places collections of people will say their own freedom of choice overrides any responsibility they have to others in society - we will see what takes place when we get to the spring of next year.

[SelectSys]

6 hours ago, mcloaked said:

... Covid-19 is not a game, and not a disease anyone would have predicted or wanted, but those in charge of countries, and companies have to try to traverse the minefield of trying to protect life, as well as trying to protect the economy - and it is one of the toughest problems the world has had to deal with in a century.

 

Totally agree that is one of the toughest problems from a public health policy perspective and involves many trade-offs where losses are going to happen regardless of outcome.

 

COVID management might not be a game, but that doesn't mean "game theory" isn't useful nor being looked at from the perspective of shaping policy:

 

https://areomagazine.com/2020/05/19/game-theory-and-the-politics-of-coronavirus/

https://news.umich.edu/game-theory-and-covid-19-major-defense-project-pivots-to-explore-how-to-coordinate-safe-behavior/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7399618/

https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.13305

 

Sorry for the diversion, I just spent time many years ago studying this for some time in school.

 

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

...

It is also funny how people dismiss things they don't like as rants, while showing little understanding of math, orders of magnitude, of application of the smell test. 

'

...  One of the things every good math teacher (which I was) drums into students is to look at your answer and consider whether it makes sense, or is reasonable.  A number that large in that context was obviously wrong.  But unfortunately, critical thinking and mathematical literacy is in shorter and shorter supply.
...
Sadly we have become so mathematically illiterate (when I tell people I used to be a math teacher the most common reaction is "I hated math in school") that these kind of tricks usually work.

 

Well, deviations from orthodoxy  once established in someone's mind is difficult to change.  Sometimes it's much easier to dismiss an alternative opinion as an uniformed rant rather than spend the time to look at the facts.  This trend seems to be accelerating as traditional education (including numeracy) is eliminated and replaced by other subjects deemed more important by our education/governmental establishment.

 

Yep, even basic arithmetical and estimation skills are just about non-existent these days for most.  Even the study of these subjects are ridiculed as being for "nerds."

 

1 hour ago, donaldsc said:

 

There is a wonder very small but interesting book out there called "How to Lie with Statistics"

...

Everyone should read it.

 

DON

 

I think the statement of "lies, damn lies and statistics" has been around for a long time.

https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/lies.htm  As someone who works with statistical models quite a bit, I have updated this statement to "lies, damn lies and spreadsheets."

 

COVID has certainly exposed the masses to models.  Unfortunately their limitations are rarely discussed nor are likely understood by policy makers.  This makes it easy to dupe the policy maker into believing whatever the modeler wants to present.  

 

56 minutes ago, neverbeenhere said:

Statistical models and/or facts on land may not accurately relate to the facts on ships. Medical care available on ships and many of the countries that ships tend to visit may "mess" with any "facts" as we know them now.

 

As for the original OP question. No, a vaccination shouldn't be mandatory to cruise as one may have immunity built from prior infection. As for wearing formal wear while cruising, yes that should be mandatory.

 

This is true.  You can't apply a model directly from one area to another and expect it to hold.  

 

I agree with the vaccine requirement.  I think businesses should have the right to determine their own policies for something optional like cruising which minimizes their risk of problems.  If you don't want to take a vaccine, simply go on a different type of vacation.

 

BTW - I got my flu shot yesterday.  Hope it works!

Edited September 22, 2020 by SelectSys

[cruisemom42]

The problem regarding numbers and statistics is that we can present them ad infinitum, and even if they were all given proper context, they would still be incomplete (COVID is too new) and at the end of the day decisions still have to be made. We can't sit on our hands for 20 years while all the research is reported and numbers crunched.

 

One number I will point to is the milestone of 200,000 deaths in the US reached today. When Fauci originally said deaths could reach this level, there was quite a bit of disbelief. Yet here we are. 200K deaths is too many, whatever % they represent, when there are (and were) ways to bring that number down.

 

As I said initially, I would be far more likely to book a cruise if vaccines are required, based on current knowledge. (Last statement meant to be ironic since so many people don't seem to understand that science isn't based on pronouncements carved in stone but rather is constantly revised to incorporate the newest findings....)

 

[sanger727]

21 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

I suggest you buy a new calculator.  Your numbers are out.

 

It doesn't matter what population numbers you use, the ratio is always going to the same.  A reduction of 1.4%.

 

US population is 330,052,960

 

Cochrane says that 23 in a 1000 un-vaccinated people would get flu which is  7,591,218 people

Cochrane says 9 in 1000 vaccinated would also get flu which is   2,970,476

 

The difference is just 4,620,742

 

Whilst 4.6 million may sound like a lot out of context, when pitched against a population of 330 million it really isn't many at all.  Is in fact of course just 1.4% !

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alright, since you want to start getting technical with numbers. In the 2016 census around 170 million people were "adults" (sure they were not all healthy, but sure, let's use that).  So your 1.4% reduction would amount to roughly 2,400,000 people. There were around 81 million that would have fallen into the category of children so at a reduction of 14% that is 11,340,000. And around 64.5 million people in the "elderly" category. So at a 3.5% reduction that would be 2,254,000. So total around 16 million flu cases saved out of the (at that time 318 million people) if everyone got vaccinated. Out of the total US population, only 5%.... But out of total flu cases in the US, we are talking about a significant reduction in flu cases...

 

But the flu really isn't the point, COVID is the point. Even if we could get a similar effectiveness of a vaccine, you are still talking about 100,000 lives saved (over 6 months, many more over the course of a year). I get it, in your mind 100,000 people is still too small a number to care about as a percentage. But we are still talking about 4 world trade center attacks, or 62 Boeing 747 crashes, or just above the number of people who would die from lung cancer in that 6 month period. If you look at that perspective and those deaths being preventable I think most people would take action. If I told you that 2 Boeing 747s were going to crash a week and kill everyone onboard until everyone got this vaccine, I think most people would get it....

[ontheweb]

4 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Sadly we have become so mathematically illiterate (when I tell people I used to be a math teacher the most common reaction is "I hated math in school") that these kind of tricks usually work.

Well, I for one really liked math in school.

 

I ended up in college with a lot of very smart people who did not like math and/or were afraid of it. Got my only A+ final grade in an introductory statistics  course where I was told I was "thrown off the curve".

 

In 12th grade calculus, the answers were in the back of the book. We all looked at them, but I was the only one honest enough to say they did when the teacher asked. The obvious reason was to check you got it right; the less obvious one was when you could not figure it out and used the answer to work backwards to figure out how to do the problem. I actually got to use that principle in my work career. I worked in an tax prep office as a checker and emergency everything. My boss gave me a return to find where he had made an error (and I had missed it when checking it). I could not find it, so I worked backwards from what the IRS said the tax should be  AND FOUND THEIR ERROR.

 

So, not everyone rolls their eyes at math teachers.

[lenquixote66]

3 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Well, I for one really liked math in school.

 

I ended up in college with a lot of very smart people who did not like math and/or were afraid of it. Got my only A+ final grade in an introductory statistics  course where I was told I was "thrown off the curve".

 

In 12th grade calculus, the answers were in the back of the book. We all looked at them, but I was the only one honest enough to say they did when the teacher asked. The obvious reason was to check you got it right; the less obvious one was when you could not figure it out and used the answer to work backwards to figure out how to do the problem. I actually got to use that principle in my work career. I worked in an tax prep office as a checker and emergency everything. My boss gave me a return to find where he had made an error (and I had missed it when checking it). I could not find it, so I worked backwards from what the IRS said the tax should be  AND FOUND THEIR ERROR.

 

So, not everyone rolls their eyes at math teachers.

My best friend who left the world in April was a Math Major at NYU,One of my daughters is a Math teacher,I hated the subject in college especially calculus.However,it was required to graduate.Instead of the traditional course I took Theory Of Calculus which I liked very much.