CDC Order

[Dermotsgirl]

2 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

You mention that you are a physician and immunologist. Good for you, that's wonderful. So what's your medical basis for the first sentence of this post you made? I am surprised, since there is no vaccine I'm aware of in Europe, and yet MSC and Costa have sailed for weeks without a single case. If a vaccine were necessary in order to have cruising resume, what's the difference between Italy and the US? (PS I am also hopeful for a vaccine, BTW, I just know [not believe, KNOW] that cruising can and has resumed without one).

It's true that a handful of ships have been sailing for some weeks, but in order to keep covid off the ships, the experience is controlled and structured, with the ships sailing at low capacity.

 

It's cruising, but not as we know it from the pre covid days 

[DCGuy64]

6 minutes ago, Dermotsgirl said:

It's true that a handful of ships have been sailing for some weeks, but in order to keep covid off the ships, the experience is controlled and structured, with the ships sailing at low capacity.

 

It's cruising, but not as we know it from the pre covid days 

Yes, for now, just as was predicted many months ago. I know of no reputable source that said cruising would resume at 100% capacity on Day 1. It makes sense to start slowly and ramp up over time. Anything else would be reckless.

[capriccio]

3 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

 It makes sense to start slowly and ramp up over time. Anything else would be reckless.

 

I agree but that will be the problem for the cruise lines. 

 

They will have excess capacity during the ramp up.  In the meantime many (maybe the majority?) of their pre-covid customers/would be customers are wary of cruising without a vaccine and/or are not interested in cruising with the mask, social distancing, and restricted excursions requirements. 

 

What the surviving cruise lines will look like and what the passenger experience will be like remains to be seen.  I don't envy the management and staff of any cruise line in the interim.  Their livelihoods depend on a robust cruising industry while we passengers have other vacation options.

[HappyInVan]

1 hour ago, stevenr597 said:

I am a physician and an Immunologist.  I have tried to keep my comments and posts as accurate as possible. 

 

Excellent. Then, you should be supporting your colleague DR. Redfield. Expanding on what he said in explanations for us nabobs.

 

I did not have a science education. I have to do research. AS I understand it, individuals have different immunology responses to diseases and treatments. That's why a great deal of work is ongoing as to why our bodies have different responses to covid19.

 

On the other hand, medical masks are advanced applications of materials technology. Their effectiveness is consistent across all individuals, as long as the masks fit properly and are worn safely.

 

What is your advise, sir?

 

 

[stevenr597]

11 hours ago, HappyInVan said:

 

As a medical worker, you must know that a vaccine can be as effective as zero...

 

"Vaccine effectiveness studies in both the outpatient setting and adult inpatient setting observed good protection against A(H1N1) and little to no protection against A(H3N2) viruses relative to what is expected for influenza vaccine effectiveness."

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/diseases-conditions/fluwatch/2018-2019/annual-report.html

 

As for the effectiveness of a mask and social distancing, there's plenty of evidence that it is effective together.

Several important facts. 

The Coronavirus is not the Flu viruse which has several different strains and a high mutation rate from season to season.  Even then the Influenza Vaccine is highly effective. 

In respect  the Coronavirus Vaccine, one must compare it to other viral vaccines such as Polio, Measles etc which are highly effective.  

If a vaccine was ineffective, it would be pulled from the market, or not introduced. Minimum standards for a vaccine to be release would be at least 50% effective.  

In respect to the head of the CDC masks are a benefit, but nowhere near as effective as controlling an Epidemic or Pandemic as an effective vaccine which would be the game changer. 

Edited October 6, 2020 by stevenr597
Adding information

[stevenr597]

3 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Excellent. Then, you should be supporting your colleague DR. Redfield. Expanding on what he said in explanations for us nabobs.

 

I did not have a science education. I have to do research. AS I understand it, individuals have different immunology responses to diseases and treatments. That's why a great deal of work is ongoing as to why our bodies have different responses to covid19.

 

On the other hand, medical masks are advanced applications of materials technology. Their effectiveness is consistent across all individuals, as long as the masks fit properly and are worn safely.

 

What is your advise, sir?

 

 

Yes and no.  In respect to a mask, factors which are important is the type of masks worn.  To be truly effective against a virus one must wear a properly fitted N-95 respirator type mask, and in addition protective eye goggles.

In respect to vaccines, in most cases it is the very young and very old who will have an impairment in respect to immune response.  That can be gotten around by offering booster injections. 

Many people are comparing Covid to the "Flu".  While they may have similar symptoms, Influenza is a different type of virus which has a high mutation rate, which makes the use of an effective vaccine somewhat difficult. 

[stevenr597]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

You mention that you are a physician and immunologist. Good for you, that's wonderful. So what's your medical basis for the first sentence of this post you made? I am surprised, since there is no vaccine I'm aware of in Europe, and yet MSC and Costa have sailed for weeks without a single case. If a vaccine were necessary in order to have cruising resume, what's the difference between Italy and the US? (PS I am also hopeful for a vaccine, BTW, I just know [not believe, KNOW] that cruising can and has resumed without one).

I believe that the cruising started, in Europe,  was limited and from countries that had a relatively low incidence of the Coronavirus.  That may be changing in that the these same countries such as Italy are now experiencing flare-ups. 

In addition, the U.S. is not Europe.  All it will take is for one cruise ship to have a big outbreak on-board.  They would be hit by  lawsuits, bad press, and I believe that the CDC will shut down the entire industry....again.

There may be limited cruising, but like restaurants, they will not be fully open for business until we have a safe and effective vaccine.  I do believe that the Cruise Industry will also require proof of Influenza Vaccination in that both disease have similar clinical manifestations.

In regards to these points, I stress that this is just my opinion. 

[DCGuy64]

32 minutes ago, capriccio said:

 

I agree but that will be the problem for the cruise lines. 

 

They will have excess capacity during the ramp up.  In the meantime many (maybe the majority?) of their pre-covid customers/would be customers are wary of cruising without a vaccine and/or are not interested in cruising with the mask, social distancing, and restricted excursions requirements. 

 

What the surviving cruise lines will look like and what the passenger experience will be like remains to be seen.  I don't envy the management and staff of any cruise line in the interim.  Their livelihoods depend on a robust cruising industry while we passengers have other vacation options.

It's hard to predict the future with any degree of certainty. At best, it's just a guess. I *assume* that a good percentage of regular cruisers are considered high-risk for COVID, i.e. the elderly/retirees. But that's an assumption, and furthermore, I saw PLENTY of people under 65 on my last two cruises. PLENTY. It's possible some of that demographic will choose not to sail for the time being. It's also possible the cruise lines will market themselves to a younger demographic to make up the difference. Only time will tell.

[DCGuy64]

5 minutes ago, stevenr597 said:

I believe that the cruising started, in Europe,  was limited and from countries that had a relatively low incidence of the Coronavirus.  That may be changing in that the these same countries such as Italy are now experiencing flare-ups. 

In addition, the U.S. is not Europe.  All it will take is for one cruise ship to have a big outbreak on-board.  They would be hit by  lawsuits, bad press, and I believe that the CDC will shut down the entire industry....again.

There may be limited cruising, but like restaurants, they will not be fully open for business until we have a safe and effective vaccine.  I do believe that the Cruise Industry will also require proof of Influenza Vaccination in that both disease have similar clinical manifestations.

In regards to these points, I stress that this is just my opinion. 

" All it will take is for one cruise ship to have a big outbreak on-board.."

That is precisely what I heard people say here and on Facebook when MSC announced that it planned to resume sailing. Verbatim, the exact same prediction. And people stated it as though it were a foregone conclusion. Not one single case of COVID on MSC to date. Which is why I'm glad you stressed it's just your opinion. I would also love to know what your basis is for saying that the US isn't Europe, other than the obvious geographic one. My take is that this is a multibillion $ industry that has been idled for more than 6 months, and if anything, they stand to lose the most if they don't get it right. Which is why I believe they will. The results of the CLIA recommendations and the 74-point proposal by the Healthy Sail Panel are testament to the seriousness with which this is being taken. Key to the recovery/resumption of cruises will be a media that reports fairly on the industry and stops running sensationalist headlines with no basis in fact, like they did earlier this year.

[Potstech]

23 minutes ago, HappyInVan said:

 

Excellent. Then, you should be supporting your colleague DR. Redfield. Expanding on what he said in explanations for us nabobs.

 

I did not have a science education. I have to do research. AS I understand it, individuals have different immunology responses to diseases and treatments. That's why a great deal of work is ongoing as to why our bodies have different responses to covid19.

 

On the other hand, medical masks are advanced applications of materials technology. Their effectiveness is consistent across all individuals, as long as the masks fit properly and are worn safely.

 

What is your advise, sir?

 

 

Or supporting the infectious disease leading professors at Harvard, Stanford, Oxford, to name a few, who blatantly disagree with Redfield.

[Mary229]

13 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

It's hard to predict the future with any degree of certainty. At best, it's just a guess. I *assume* that a good percentage of regular cruisers are considered high-risk for COVID, i.e. the elderly/retirees. But that's an assumption, and furthermore, I saw PLENTY of people under 65 on my last two cruises. PLENTY. It's possible some of that demographic will choose not to sail for the time being. It's also possible the cruise lines will market themselves to a younger demographic to make up the difference. Only time will tell.

I agree that there are enough healthy, young people to fill the ships to the reduced capacity limits and they should be allowed to go.  However the cruise industry for years has relied heavily on the mature demographic, here is the CLIA report 2016-2018:  I found a lot of the facts interesting in this report including that the vast majority of cruises are 7 days or less again in keeping with the proposed new short term limitations.  

 

CLIA Passenger Statistics Report

[DCGuy64]

4 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I agree that there are enough healthy, young people to fill the ships to the reduced capacity limits and they should be allowed to go.  However the cruise industry for years has relied heavily on the mature demographic, here is the CLIA report 2016-2018:  I found a lot of the facts interesting in this report including that the vast majority of cruises are 7 days or less again in keeping with the proposed new short term limitations.  

 

CLIA Passenger Statistics Report

Thank you so much for that report! I was really surprised (in a good way) to see that the over 70 age group comprised just 13-14% of passengers, meaning that 86% of passengers are younger than that. Given what we know about COVID mortality, the cruise industry can be confident knowing that its customer base is among those with a 99% survival rate. And that's before a vaccine is available. This is a very hopeful sign. Thank you again for the link!

[HappyInVan]

49 minutes ago, stevenr597 said:

If a vaccine was ineffective, it would be pulled from the market, or not introduced. Minimum standards for a vaccine to be release would be at least 50% effective.  

In respect to the head of the CDC masks are a benefit, but nowhere near as effective as controlling an Epidemic or Pandemic as an effective vaccine which would be the game changer. 

 

Excellent! So, the ideal strategy would be to have a program to control/eradicate the disease through testing and contact tracing. Once, the disease spreads into the community, distancing and masks would be necessary.

 

Vaccines have been sold as the final solution. Some of us wonder how that would be possible if the efficacy is only 50%? Every other person would not be immune? Is it a game changer?

 

In the case of the seasonal flu, only 70% of seniors get the vaccine. In the States some 40k still die every year.

 

Do you have any tactical advise for Floridians? Most of us want to cruise out of Florida. We are uncertain about the state of affairs.

 

For example, the DoH reported (Risk factors for Florida residents Page 1) that only 39% of confirmed in-state cases have been resolved (Traveled, Contact with a known case, Traveled and contact with a known case). Tracing on the other 61% has not been successful!

 

http://ww11.doh.state.fl.us/comm/_partners/covid19_report_archive/cases-monitoring-and-pui-information/state-report/state_reports_latest.pdf

 

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by HappyInVan

[nocl]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

You mention that you are a physician and immunologist. Good for you, that's wonderful. So what's your medical basis for the first sentence of this post you made? I am surprised, since there is no vaccine I'm aware of in Europe, and yet MSC and Costa have sailed for weeks without a single case. If a vaccine were necessary in order to have cruising resume, what's the difference between Italy and the US? (PS I am also hopeful for a vaccine, BTW, I just know [not believe, KNOW] that cruising can and has resumed without one).

The incidence of COVID in those countries that are allowing the sailings (Germany and Italy)  is considerable lower than in the US.  When they allowed sailing to commence the rate of new infections in Italy was 4 per million per day and in Germany 10 per million per day.  The rates have gone up and Germany is now around 25 per million per day and Italy 36 per million per day. Both countries have very active testing and contact tracing programs (more effective than in the US)

 

Compared to the US where the new infection rate are around 125 per million per day.

 

Backed up by testing and other measures means that the odds of an ill person actually making it onto the ship is quite low 

MSC test program has been effective.  For example 13 passengers were denied boarding because one of the people in their group tested positive. (both Antigen and PCR were positive).

 

At the US infection rate the odds of multiple infected individuals in a random mix of 2000 passengers is pretty high. Considering the limitations of testing in catching cases at various stages, means that at the US rate of infection the odds of an infected person making it on board is pretty high.

[Abercrombie2019]

4 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Thank you so much for that report! I was really surprised (in a good way) to see that the over 70 age group comprised just 13-14% of passengers, meaning that 86% of passengers are younger than that. Given what we know about COVID mortality, the cruise industry can be confident knowing that its customer base is among those with a 99% survival rate. And that's before a vaccine is available. This is a very hopeful sign. Thank you again for the link!

So, you seem to be suggesting that the survival rate for people under 70 years old is 99% (truly sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point).  Let's be generous and say that the survival rate for everyone is 99%.  The population of the US is approximately 330,000,000 people.  If the survival rate is 99%, that would mean that the death rate is 1% - that is 3,300,000 dead people.  

 

I'm hoping that the vaccine works and is widely available once it has been approved.

[DCGuy64]

20 minutes ago, nocl said:

The incidence of COVID in those countries that are allowing the sailings (Germany and Italy)  is considerable lower than in the US.  When they allowed sailing to commence the rate of new infections in Italy was 4 per million per day and in Germany 10 per million per day.  The rates have gone up and Germany is now around 25 per million per day and Italy 36 per million per day. Both countries have very active testing and contact tracing programs (more effective than in the US)

 

Compared to the US where the new infection rate are around 125 per million per day.

 

Backed up by testing and other measures means that the odds of an ill person actually making it onto the ship is quite low 

MSC test program has been effective.  For example 13 passengers were denied boarding because one of the people in their group tested positive. (both Antigen and PCR were positive).

wh

At the US infection rate the odds of multiple infected individuals in a random mix of 2000 passengers is pretty high. Considering the limitations of testing in catching cases at various stages, means that at the US rate of infection the odds of an infected person making it on board is pretty high.

Thank you, however my question was for the person who is a physician and immunologist.

 

17 minutes ago, Abercrombie2019 said:

So, you seem to be suggesting that the survival rate for people under 70 years old is 99% (truly sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point).  Let's be generous and say that the survival rate for everyone is 99%.  The population of the US is approximately 330,000,000 people.  If the survival rate is 99%, that would mean that the death rate is 1% - that is 3,300,000 dead people.  

 

I'm hoping that the vaccine works and is widely available once it has been approved.

I'm also hoping for a vaccine. I relied on data from the CDC, Johns Hopkins and Worldometers for information suggesting that the survival rate for those with COVID-19 drops dramatically in populations below 70 years of age. The last sentence in your 1st paragraph doesn't make sense. You are assuming a survival rate of 1% but also assuming that all 330,000,000 people get COVID. Not likely. It's more like 2% get it and 96% of THOSE survive. (On the Worldometers site right now, it shows a total of 7,687,067 cases (2.33% of US pop) and a survival rate of 96%, including all age groups) Again, this is all well and good, but I'm just a cruiser and I'm not relying on these little back-and-forths (entertaining as they are) to help me decide how to live my life and whether/when to cruise again.

Edited October 6, 2020 by DCGuy64
correct data

[nocl]

49 minutes ago, stevenr597 said:

Yes and no.  In respect to a mask, factors which are important is the type of masks worn.  To be truly effective against a virus one must wear a properly fitted N-95 respirator type mask, and in addition protective eye goggles.

In respect to vaccines, in most cases it is the very young and very old who will have an impairment in respect to immune response.  That can be gotten around by offering booster injections. 

Many people are comparing Covid to the "Flu".  While they may have similar symptoms, Influenza is a different type of virus which has a high mutation rate, which makes the use of an effective vaccine somewhat difficult. 

In a medical environment where COVID patients are being treated or in an enclosed are with heavy viral load what you are saying is correct.  Fortunately most of us are not in that environment and can take action to stay out of such locations.

 

As indicated by several studies, even cloth masks can be effective in reducing spread.  The do so by reducing the velocity of expelled particles, capturing some  but insuring that most do not travel as far and as fact from the source. In most setting this is sufficient to minimize spread (particles spread while talking that normally travel 9-12 feet will travel less than 1 foot with a reasonable mask).  The best test for if ones mask is effective is to put it on and blow hard and see if with effect a burning match.  Even in an air plane if masks are worn, combined with the way air flow is design on an aircraft (top to bottom air flow with HEPA filtering) a great deal of the risk is removed.

 

Recent studies even show that while such masks will not totally filter the virus it does help to protect the wearer to some degree as well.  It does this by reducing the area from which air is drawn when inhaling, as well as capturing some particles, reducing the level of viruses that reach the individual.

 

Now this will not totally protect a person, especially in a closed environment where small particles might linger, but used effectively they can considerably reduce the rate of spread.

 

They are another, and pretty effective tool to helping to contain the virus.

 

Vaccines are another tool, however, just as masks are not 100% effective, neither will a vaccines be.  The vaccine effectiveness as a tool will depend on a number of factors including efficacy, number of people inoculated, general population behavior once the vaccine is released. If people assume that they can drop distancing, wearing masks, etc just because a vaccine has been released things could get worse before they get better.

 

Also keep in mind that the vaccines trials are design to look at  moderate and severe cases.  They are not checking or including asymptomatic cases.  There is a not insignificant possibility that the vaccine, even if the trials do show efficacy, might not prevent infection.  It just might lower the impact of infection to a point where symptoms do not develop, but a person could still be contagious.

[Mary229]

19 minutes ago, Abercrombie2019 said:

So, you seem to be suggesting that the survival rate for people under 70 years old is 99% (truly sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point).  Let's be generous and say that the survival rate for everyone is 99%.  The population of the US is approximately 330,000,000 people.  If the survival rate is 99%, that would mean that the death rate is 1% - that is 3,300,000 dead people.  

 

I'm hoping that the vaccine works and is widely available once it has been approved.

That is a "ballpark" rate for all ages.  If you look at those under 50 it is much, much lower. Hence those older than 70 are the ones who need to stay home, after all, staying home is the best protection and is the simplest solution.  Fortunately most people over 70 have no pressing need to leave their home.    Here is the early data (University of Oxford) scroll down for the age based data.

 

University of Oxford data on Covid

Edited October 6, 2020 by Mary229

[Abercrombie2019]

3 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I'm also hoping for a vaccine. I relied on data from the CDC, Johns Hopkins and Worldometers for information suggesting that the survival rate for those with COVID-19 drops dramatically in populations below 70 years of age. The last sentence in your 1st paragraph doesn't make sense. You are assuming a survival rate of 1% (nope, not saying that at all - you said 99% survival rate which leaves 1% as the death rate) but also assuming that all 330,000,000 people get COVID. Not likely. It's more like 2% get it and 96% of THOSE survive (so now you're saying that 4% will die?) . (On the Worldometers site right now, it shows a total of just over 7,000,000 cases (2.33% of US pop) and a survival rate of 96%, including all age groups) Again, this is all well and good, but I'm just a cruiser and I'm not relying on these little back-and-forths (entertaining as they are) to help me decide how to live my life and whether/when to cruise again.

 

Sorry, I was just using your math.  The people who advocate for Herd Immunity want at least 70% of the population to get it - so I was just pointing out the dangers of that kind of thinking. The numbers become huge, very quickly.

[Abercrombie2019]

8 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

That is a "ballpark" rate for all ages.  If you look at those under 50 it is much, much lower. Hence those older than 70 are the ones who need to stay home, after all, staying home is the best protection and is the simplest solution.  Fortunately most people over 70 have no pressing need to leave their home.    Here is the early data (University of Oxford) scroll down for the age based data.

 

University of Oxford data on Covid

You obviously don't know too many people over the age of 70.  They do tend to need to eat, go to appointments and tend to life's daily problems.

[Mary229]

2 minutes ago, Abercrombie2019 said:

You obviously don't know too many people over the age of 70.  They do tend to need to eat, go to appointments and tend to life's daily problems.

I have husband close.  This is a cruise thread, they don't need to cruise.  What happens in life near you is up to your local authorities.  BUT I am sticking with the topic (cruising with Covid) at hand in accordance with forum guidelines

Edited October 6, 2020 by Mary229

[Abercrombie2019]

2 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I have husband close.  This is a cruise thread, they don't need to cruise.  What happens in life near you is up to your local authorities.  BUT I am sticking with the topic at hand in accordance with forum guidelines

You are right - my apologies.

[stevenr597]

22 minutes ago, nocl said:

In a medical environment where COVID patients are being treated or in an enclosed are with heavy viral load what you are saying is correct.  Fortunately most of us are not in that environment and can take action to stay out of such locations.

 

As indicated by several studies, even cloth masks can be effective in reducing spread.  The do so by reducing the velocity of expelled particles, capturing some  but insuring that most do not travel as far and as fact from the source. In most setting this is sufficient to minimize spread (particles spread while talking that normally travel 9-12 feet will travel less than 1 foot with a reasonable mask).  The best test for if ones mask is effective is to put it on and blow hard and see if with effect a burning match.  Even in an air plane if masks are worn, combined with the way air flow is design on an aircraft (top to bottom air flow with HEPA filtering) a great deal of the risk is removed.

 

Recent studies even show that while such masks will not totally filter the virus it does help to protect the wearer to some degree as well.  It does this by reducing the area from which air is drawn when inhaling, as well as capturing some particles, reducing the level of viruses that reach the individual.

 

Now this will not totally protect a person, especially in a closed environment where small particles might linger, but used effectively they can considerably reduce the rate of spread.

 

They are another, and pretty effective tool to helping to contain the virus.

 

Vaccines are another tool, however, just as masks are not 100% effective, neither will a vaccines be.  The vaccine effectiveness as a tool will depend on a number of factors including efficacy, number of people inoculated, general population behavior once the vaccine is released. If people assume that they can drop distancing, wearing masks, etc just because a vaccine has been released things could get worse before they get better.

 

Also keep in mind that the vaccines trials are design to look at  moderate and severe cases.  They are not checking or including asymptomatic cases.  There is a not insignificant possibility that the vaccine, even if the trials do show efficacy, might not prevent infection.  It just might lower the impact of infection to a point where symptoms do not develop, but a person could still be contagious.

A person may shed a high viral load and be relatively asymptomatic. For protection against the Coronavirus one need to be wearing an N -95 mask with goggles.  Will a simple face covering be of benefit, the answer is yes, but certainly will not provide complete protection.  A mask, even an N 95 will not be as effective as a vaccine.  

I do believe that the cruise industry will not permit individuals to board unless they are vaccinated.  

[stevenr597]

28 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Thank you, however my question was for the person who is a physician and immunologist.

 

I'm also hoping for a vaccine. I relied on data from the CDC, Johns Hopkins and Worldometers for information suggesting that the survival rate for those with COVID-19 drops dramatically in populations below 70 years of age. The last sentence in your 1st paragraph doesn't make sense. You are assuming a survival rate of 1% but also assuming that all 330,000,000 people get COVID. Not likely. It's more like 2% get it and 96% of THOSE survive. (On the Worldometers site right now, it shows a total of 7,687,067 cases (2.33% of US pop) and a survival rate of 96%, including all age groups) Again, this is all well and good, but I'm just a cruiser and I'm not relying on these little back-and-forths (entertaining as they are) to help me decide how to live my life and whether/when to cruise again.

The World Health Organization has estimated the death rate to vary between 0.5-1.5 %.  Initially the death rate was estimated much higher because they were only testing symptomatic individuals. 

[DCGuy64]

14 minutes ago, Abercrombie2019 said:

 

Sorry, I was just using your math.  The people who advocate for Herd Immunity want at least 70% of the population to get it - so I was just pointing out the dangers of that kind of thinking. The numbers become huge, very quickly.

Yes, you used my math about a 99% survival rate and then went on to draw an incorrect inference, i.e. that the entire US population will get it, which isn't true. (unless you have a factual basis for that assumption, in which case I'd love to see it). 

And I was again using statistics to show that out of all cases in the US so far with an outcome, 96% survived and 4% died. Every single one of those deaths is a tragedy. But when you crunch the numbers, you'll see that most of those who died were elderly. And since the point of this thread, last time I checked, was whether the CDC should allow sailing to resume, there is every reason to believe that that can happen. Again, for the last time, these convos are interesting but none of us on this thread is in a position to make government policy and I'm making my health decisions regardless of how many stats you throw at me. It's pointless and now I must say goodbye. I'm at work and I need to finish stuff. Have a good day.