CLIA announcement - 21st September 2020

[ldubs]

9 minutes ago, clo said:

I agree with it being a game changer. But with no viral treatments at this point, I think masks etc. are going to be required on ships. Simple equation.

 

I was commenting on those who constantly point out the efficacy of vaccine will be less than 100%.  As in:   

 

"And no one thinks a vaccine would be, what?, maybe 50% effective?"

 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

24 minutes ago, clo said:

LOL. Like most women I can multi-task quite easily. Cooked this while engaging  with @smalltimecruiser100 who I think is right on.

 

 

You should try spatchcocking it.

[2wheelin]

11 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I was commenting on those who constantly point out the efficacy of vaccine will be less than 100%.  As in:   

 

"And no one thinks a vaccine would be, what?, maybe 50% effective?"

 

 

Some are just to busy “multi-tasking” to follow along, Itchy fingers just need to keep typing no matter the content.

[clo]

13 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

You should try spatchcocking it.

It's the Zuni chicken, weighed only 3-1/4#.

[cruisemom42]

10 hours ago, ldubs said:

I honestly don't understand this constant referral to a vaccine being only 50% effective.   At even 50% effective it would be a game changer.  I think our forum scientists are off on this one.  

 

I fully agree it is a game changer -- but how much of a game changer it will be will largely be determined by how many people get it, in terms of an overall end to the pandemic.

 

I wanted to know more precisely, and I am not a mathematician, so I turned to other sources. NPR provides this scenario:

 

•  'Herd immunity' generally occurs when we have somewhere between 60% to 70% of the population having some degree of protection from disease.
• We hear a lot of predictions that a vaccine -- at least in its initial form -- will be 50-60% effective.
• As an estimation of natural immunity in the population (by natural exposure) by the time the virus is available, NPR uses 20% (e.g., 20% of the U.S. population ends up getting exposed to the virus and developing an infection before we have a vaccine).  This is about the current exposure level in NYC, for comparison.
• Given the above figure, we would still need an additional 40% of the population to gain protection via a vaccine in order to achieve effective 'herd immunity".
• And in order to get 40% of a population immune through vaccination — if you have a vaccine with 50% efficacy — you'd need to vaccinate 80% of the population.

Given logistical challenges -- not to mention the number of people unwilling to get the vaccine -- it seems unlikely that we would reach effective herd immunity UNLESS we do start to require vaccination for things like public schools, in certain industries (e.g., essential jobs, medical, manufacturing), for travel, etc.

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by cruisemom42

[iancal]

I have little confidence in the CLIA document.  It seems to me that it is more PR than anything else.  I  do not understand why it took them so long to produce this. Seems to me that it is more like a fluff piece than anything concrete.   For me, it does the opposite of what it is intended to do....persuade me to cruise early and often.

 

 

Edited September 27, 2020 by iancal

[clo]

26 minutes ago, iancal said:

I have little confidence in the CLIA document.  It seems to me that it is more PR than anything else.  I  do not understand why it took them so long to produce this. Seems to me that it is more like a fluff piece than anything concrete.   For me, it does the opposite of what it is intended to do....persuade me to cruise early and often.

 

 

Totally agree. And do they or anyone think that the CDC is going to let the order expire?

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, clo said:

Totally agree. And do they or anyone think that the CDC is going to let the order expire?

Doesn't it have an automatic expiration date? I think they might have to extend it if they wish to keep it in place as opposed to just letting it stay.

[clo]

10 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Doesn't it have an automatic expiration date? I think they might have to extend it if they wish to keep it in place as opposed to just letting it stay.

That's my impression also.

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

23 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Yes, but with no Americans aboard.

 

 

We already knew the virus was smart enough to distinguish between street protests and church services, but I never knew it was smart enough to distinguish between Americans and Europeans.

The point is that MSC cruises have been going on for weeks without serious incident, so it would be perfectly reasonable for CDC to allow cruises from the US, that use the same protocols, to proceed.  Or, in my case, having shown that they can cruise safely the CDC should let my 11/7 cruise to proceed.

[Toofarfromthesea]

Although this video is specific to MSC, it describes the protocols that MSC are using, and their cruises have been successful thus far.  A lot of people may be unwilling to cruise under these protocols, but a lot of people (including me) would be perfectly happy.  No right or wrong - personal choice.

https://youtu.be/oX2F2X6qkN4

[clo]

3 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Although this video is specific to MSC, it describes the protocols that MSC are using, and their cruises have been successful thus far.  A lot of people may be unwilling to cruise under these protocols, but a lot of people (including me) would be perfectly happy.  No right or wrong - personal choice.

https://youtu.be/oX2F2X6qkN4

Has anyone said if one is required to use the ships shore excursions will the basic fare go up? I believe it also said that masks "should" be worn. I wonder if that's being enforced.

 

Thanks for this. Good info.

[ontheweb]

3 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

We already knew the virus was smart enough to distinguish between street protests and church services, but I never knew it was smart enough to distinguish between Americans and Europeans.

The point is that MSC cruises have been going on for weeks without serious incident, so it would be perfectly reasonable for CDC to allow cruises from the US, that use the same protocols, to proceed.  Or, in my case, having shown that they can cruise safely the CDC should let my 11/7 cruise to proceed.

Unfortunately, Americans seem less likely to follow protocols. And that is something the virus can exploit.

[Toofarfromthesea]

24 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Unfortunately, Americans seem less likely to follow protocols. And that is something the virus can exploit.

 

Less likely than who?  Europeans, most of whose members have much higher deaths per 100,000 than we do?  And mortality rates 2-4 times ours?  And are experiencing more serious spikes than us?  And who make up the passenger list of those cruises which have been doing OK?

 

[clo]

3 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Less likely than who?  Europeans, most of whose members have much higher deaths per 100,000 than we do?  And mortality rates 2-4 times ours?  And are experiencing more serious spikes than us?  And who make up the passenger list of those cruises which have been doing OK?

 

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/9/9/21428769/covid-19-coronavirus-deaths-statistics-us-canada-europe

 

While Vox is a progressive site there facts are generally right on. There were other more complicated tables and charts.

[clo]

1 hour ago, clo said:

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/9/9/21428769/covid-19-coronavirus-deaths-statistics-us-canada-europe

 

While Vox is a progressive site there facts are generally right on. There were other more complicated tables and charts.

I'll just tack this on here. 

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/what-do-200-000-american-deaths-add-up-to.html?fbclid=IwAR1HhGFDaOY-LBgSp1feuTv1KRTwzeS7_wRbMN5b7wx_Dy6fsHSRrCLUyck

[ldubs]

14 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I fully agree it is a game changer -- but how much of a game changer it will be will largely be determined by how many people get it, in terms of an overall end to the pandemic.

 

I wanted to know more precisely, and I am not a mathematician, so I turned to other sources. NPR provides this scenario:

 

•  'Herd immunity' generally occurs when we have somewhere between 60% to 70% of the population having some degree of protection from disease.
• We hear a lot of predictions that a vaccine -- at least in its initial form -- will be 50-60% effective.
• As an estimation of natural immunity in the population (by natural exposure) by the time the virus is available, NPR uses 20% (e.g., 20% of the U.S. population ends up getting exposed to the virus and developing an infection before we have a vaccine).  This is about the current exposure level in NYC, for comparison.
• Given the above figure, we would still need an additional 40% of the population to gain protection via a vaccine in order to achieve effective 'herd immunity".
• And in order to get 40% of a population immune through vaccination — if you have a vaccine with 50% efficacy — you'd need to vaccinate 80% of the population.

Given logistical challenges -- not to mention the number of people unwilling to get the vaccine -- it seems unlikely that we would reach effective herd immunity UNLESS we do start to require vaccination for things like public schools, in certain industries (e.g., essential jobs, medical, manufacturing), for travel, etc.

 

 

Thanks for taking the time to share those details.   There is so much information out there that it is easy to go into overload.  

 

I'm hoping the addition of a vaccine, along with other prevention (and hopefully improved therapies), will ultimately be enough, not to end covid, but to move us out of the global pandemic category.   

[ldubs]

3 hours ago, clo said:

 

While Vox is a progressive site there facts are generally right on. 

 

👍

[ontheweb]

On 9/27/2020 at 5:01 PM, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Less likely than who?  Europeans, most of whose members have much higher deaths per 100,000 than we do?  And mortality rates 2-4 times ours?  And are experiencing more serious spikes than us?  And who make up the passenger list of those cruises which have been doing OK?

 

So how does the USA have such a higher percentage of the world's total Covid deaths than it has of the world's population?

[Toofarfromthesea]

17 hours ago, ontheweb said:

So how does the USA have such a higher percentage of the world's total Covid deaths than it has of the world's population?

 

Because of huge swaths of the third world, with large populations where anti-malarials are used routinely, have almost no deaths.  Something we should learn from but can't because someone said something positive about anti-malarials.

[ontheweb]

44 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Because of huge swaths of the third world, with large populations where anti-malarials are used routinely, have almost no deaths.  Something we should learn from but can't because someone said something positive about anti-malarials.

And according to you why have scientists now said that these anti-malarials do not work?

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Because of huge swaths of the third world, with large populations where anti-malarials are used routinely, have almost no deaths.  Something we should learn from but can't because someone said something positive about anti-malarials.

 

I have also been wondering about relative death rates between countries.  Is it malaria drugs, is it diet,  is it culture or something else that explains these differences?  Personally I am now wondering if most of these differences can be explained by age differences in populations.  Age - especially when couple with certain comorbidities - seems to be a universally acknowledged factor in determining who is at risk of severe complications from COVID.

 

Sub Sharan Africa might be the largest malaria zone, but it is also home to the world's youngest population.  What is the real reason mortality rates are lower assuming the data is being captured correctly?  I think India is a good example to consider where I believe the government is pretty honest with data and the COVID mortality rates are lower than seen in many "richer" countries.  In India 65% of the country is below the age of 35 while in Spain  approximately 60% of the population is over 40.

[ontheweb]

17 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Because of huge swaths of the third world, with large populations where anti-malarials are used routinely, have almost no deaths.  Something we should learn from but can't because someone said something positive about anti-malarials.

Are you actually saying that the FDA scientists took away the emergency permission for this drug to be used because they want to sabotage a certain prominent person? Do you really believe those scientists would not want an effective treatment?

 

Really the opposite is true. The emergency grant to use the drug for a purpose it was not approved for came about because of the prominent person. But when the data came in that it was not effective, that is when the emergency permission was lifted.