The Cruise and Travel Industry is in a very bad place!

[SelectSys]

9 minutes ago, sfaaa said:

Could it be that their medical system and health facilities are sub par?

 

Another key factor is that the country's poor can't afford to go into lockdown and still eat.  

https://time.com/5844768/peru-coronavirus/

 

"But public health experts say living and working conditions in the country of 33 million—where a fifth of people live on only around $100 a month—has made it near impossible for many Peruvians to comply with quarantine measures. Meanwhile, some government measures have backfired, inadvertently leading to bigger gatherings of people. Here’s what to know about how COVID-19 spread in Peru, despite quarantine measures."

 

[rkacruiser]

22 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Perhaps that tells us that all the lock downs and bubble staying have not been effective.  Are we in a better place then 6 months ago?

 

In a better place?  No.  Has my bubble staying been effective for me?  Yes.  

 

I may have a funeral soon that I ought to attend.  After reflection and praying about what I should do, a "message" has been received by my intellect that says, as much as it hurts not to attend that funeral when it occurs, doing so is not in my best interest.

 

I hope my non-attendance does not cause me to loose the friendship of my friends.

Edited October 31, 2020 by rkacruiser

[rkacruiser]

7 hours ago, cruisemom42 said:

I would argue that while scientific journals and peer review are imperfect, they are a lot better, less biased, and more thorough at vetting false information than most other sources we have....

 

I so agree.  Not just with what we personally must do to protect ourselves.  But, also, whenever, if ever, a vaccine becomes available.  

 

I want to see the researchers from respected medical and scientific institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, etc. indicate that whatever vaccine that is developed is safe and effective.  I have NO trust in whatever I learn from the FDA or the CDC at this time.  Trust in the FDA and the CDC has been eroded in this household.  

[ilikeanswers]

6 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

And yet, one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, The Lancet, had no trouble publishing a study based on fake data - which they subsequently had to retract.  So I am less than impressed by their "standards".  The mask study was done by reputable researchers.  It's not like it was found on an abandoned laptop.

 

I would suggest reading @cruisemom42 response. She did a far better job of explaining than I could have 🤗

[Hlitner]

51 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

I so agree.  Not just with what we personally must do to protect ourselves.  But, also, whenever, if ever, a vaccine becomes available.  

 

I want to see the researchers from respected medical and scientific institutions such as the Mayo Clinic, the Cleveland Clinic, etc. indicate that whatever vaccine that is developed is safe and effective.  I have NO trust in whatever I learn from the FDA or the CDC at this time.  Trust in the FDA and the CDC has been eroded in this household.  

I think you are being a bit silly.  Places like the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not in the business of testing/approving vaccines or drugs.  Yes, those facilities (and plenty of others) are willing participants in many clinical trials (often funded by the pharmaceutical companies) but testing vaccines it not their thing.  I have no personal agenda, but do get concerned when the public suddenly questions the same drug/vaccine approval protocols that have been in place for decades!  I understand that many see this as a Trump issue.  So, if Joe Biden wins next week then I guess that means everything is fine?   The truth is that there will likely be no changes (no matter who wins the election) other then possibly a change at the top (Dr. Redfield).   The independent panel that is reviewing COVID vaccine studies will not change nor will the process.

 

That being said, a near lifetime working in the government healthcare industry has never given me a rosy feeling about the CDC.  But I have heard very little criticism (over more then 35 years) of the FDA process other then critics complain it is too slow and cautious.

 

Hank

[ldubs]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:31 PM, navybankerteacher said:

I hope you are not suggesting that social distancing, mask wearing, and - yes, even lockdowns - have not limited the spread - therefore reduced infections, thereby limited hospitalizations, and - of course - ultimately saved lives.

 

No - we are not necessarily in a better place than we were 6 months ago —- but we sure as hell would have been in a much worse place had those efforts (no matter how imperfect) not been made.

 

And, now that people have tired of making those efforts, we are seeing the results.

 

 

I agree with what you say about the benefits of masks.   And, I do think we are better than 6 months ago on some important scores.   The average number of daily deaths is considerably lower than in April.  In your state, and others hit heavily early on,  that improvement is even more remarkable.  Of course we still have a long way to go.  

 

We are seeing more cases.  I don't think that is because a whole bunch of mask wearers suddenly decided to stop.   I suspect it is more the expected result of our starting to relax the shut down rules.   Anyway,  I think the idea that because COVID still exists masks and social distancing did not work is likely coming from extreme frustration.   

 

 

 

[ontheweb]

10 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I think you are being a bit silly.  Places like the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic are not in the business of testing/approving vaccines or drugs.  Yes, those facilities (and plenty of others) are willing participants in many clinical trials (often funded by the pharmaceutical companies) but testing vaccines it not their thing.  I have no personal agenda, but do get concerned when the public suddenly questions the same drug/vaccine approval protocols that have been in place for decades!  I understand that many see this as a Trump issue.  So, if Joe Biden wins next week then I guess that means everything is fine?   The truth is that there will likely be no changes (no matter who wins the election) other then possibly a change at the top (Dr. Redfield).   The independent panel that is reviewing COVID vaccine studies will not change nor will the process.

 

That being said, a near lifetime working in the government healthcare industry has never given me a rosy feeling about the CDC.  But I have heard very little criticism (over more then 35 years) of the FDA process other then critics complain it is too slow and cautious.

 

Hank

One word comes to mind when anyone criticizes the FDA for being slow and cautious---Thalidomide. That drug should have never been given to pregnant women, and that was its first intended use!

[Hlitner]

2 hours ago, ontheweb said:

One word comes to mind when anyone criticizes the FDA for being slow and cautious---Thalidomide. That drug should have never been given to pregnant women, and that was its first intended use!

Yep, I am old enough to remember that fiasco.   There is no reason (based on facts) for folks to have issues with the FDA process.  Unlike what happens at the CDC (where unelected bureaucrats call many of the shots) the FDA forms independent panels/advisory committees (most members do not work for the government) to review new drugs/vaccines.  In nearly all cases the recommendations of these panels will drive the final decision (made by the FDA Commissioner).  If Dr. Hahn (the Commissioner) were to make a decision contrary to the panel then folks might have some reason for concern.  But this would likely cause a public uproar and is very unlikely.

 

For those who think the FDA is controlled by "Trump" or Foxnews I would simply tell them to look at what happened with the hydroxychoroquine issue.  That drug was pushed by the President and certain folks at Foxnews on a daily basis.  Since it has long been an approved drug (primarily for malaria and some autoimmune disorders) it was easily available for off-label use so any physician could have utilized this drug.  But even with all that political pressure the FDA never did anything but review the issue and bless some research projects.  When most of the research failed to show the desired outcomes the issue faded away.  Most of the original proponents of using that drug have since moved on to champion other drugs...most of which also did not have the desired outcomes.    So with all this political and media hype about various therapeutic treatments the FDA never strayed from their normal procedures.  Until somebody shows me information to the contrary I see no reason not to trust the FDA.  And I sure would trust the FDA a lot more then Governor Newsom or Governor Cuomo :). 

 

Hank

[ilikeanswers]

3 hours ago, ontheweb said:

One word comes to mind when anyone criticizes the FDA for being slow and cautious---Thalidomide. That drug should have never been given to pregnant women, and that was its first intended use!

 

The FDA got that one right and my country was one of those that got it very wrong 😳:

The Woman Who Stood Between America and a Generation of ‘Thalidomide Babies’

Edited November 1, 2020 by ilikeanswers

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

The FDA got that one right and my country was one of those that got it very wrong 😳:

The Woman Who Stood Between America and a Generation of ‘Thalidomide Babies’

Great article. Thank you for posting it. 

 

It should give pause to anyone who thinks that the approval process for new drugs is too slow.

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Yep, I am old enough to remember that fiasco.   There is no reason (based on facts) for folks to have issues with the FDA process.  Unlike what happens at the CDC (where unelected bureaucrats call many of the shots) the FDA forms independent panels/advisory committees (most members do not work for the government) to review new drugs/vaccines.  In nearly all cases the recommendations of these panels will drive the final decision (made by the FDA Commissioner).  If Dr. Hahn (the Commissioner) were to make a decision contrary to the panel then folks might have some reason for concern.  But this would likely cause a public uproar and is very unlikely.

 

For those who think the FDA is controlled by "Trump" or Foxnews I would simply tell them to look at what happened with the hydroxychoroquine issue.  That drug was pushed by the President and certain folks at Foxnews on a daily basis.  Since it has long been an approved drug (primarily for malaria and some autoimmune disorders) it was easily available for off-label use so any physician could have utilized this drug.  But even with all that political pressure the FDA never did anything but review the issue and bless some research projects.  When most of the research failed to show the desired outcomes the issue faded away.  Most of the original proponents of using that drug have since moved on to champion other drugs...most of which also did not have the desired outcomes.    So with all this political and media hype about various therapeutic treatments the FDA never strayed from their normal procedures.  Until somebody shows me information to the contrary I see no reason not to trust the FDA.  And I sure would trust the FDA a lot more then Governor Newsom or Governor Cuomo :). 

 

Hank

Excellent post. The one thing I would change is all politicians instead of Newsome and Cuomo. I do understand why you named those 2 as their stated actions sound like they do not trust the FDA and might lead those who believe them to the same conclusion.

[mnocket]

18 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

explicate

 

I learned a new word today.  Thanks. 🙂👍

[rkacruiser]

23 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I think you are being a bit silly.  

 

I could take offense at this remark, sir.  But, I won't because I have come to respect your opinions on a variety of topics about which we have exchanged our views.  

 

23 hours ago, Hlitner said:

23 hours ago, Hlitner said:

Places like the Cleveland Clinic and Mayo Clinic

 

 

Having been a patient for many years of the Mayo Clinic, I have great faith in what their scientists and doctors have to say.  

[rkacruiser]

10 hours ago, Hlitner said:

I see no reason not to trust the FDA. 

 

The issue, as I see it, is that the FDA is a governmental agency.  The CDC is a governmental agency.  Is it proper/fair for opinions about what they "tell" us to be "lumped" together as to whether what they "pronounce" is correct?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  The major problem--again as I see it--is that I have been forced in the recent year to extremely doubt what I hear from one "official" (or more) contradicts what other "officials" employed by our Federal government say.  

 

The messaging is so contradictory.  How can you deny that?  

 

The loss of trust in our Federal and, for many, State Governments is something that is going to take a very long time to repair.  Will whatever the results of November 3rd be able to do it?  I doubt it.  I am fearful.  Yet, I remain hopeful.  

 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by rkacruiser

[LocoLoco1]

I took a respected Covid-19 Death Quiz.  I’m good. (Not so good, however, for an obese, smoking Diabetic over 80 that doesn’t wear a mask if they get Covid-19).

[navybankerteacher]

2 minutes ago, LocoLoco1 said:

I took a respected Covid-19 Death Quiz.  I’m good. (Not so good, however, for an obese, smoking Diabetic over 80 that doesn’t wear a mask if they get Covid-19).

What is a "respected Covid 19 Death Quiz"?

 

By whom is it respected?

 

Does a certain score comfortably assure you that you are "good"?

 

How do you think some of the recent younger persons who, without known preconditions, did die  - would have done on that quiz?

 

Please tell me it was not in Cosmo or in some supermarket tabloid.

[Hlitner]

51 minutes ago, rkacruiser said:

 

The issue, as I see it, is that the FDA is a governmental agency.  The CDC is a governmental agency.  Is it proper/fair for opinions about what they "tell" us to be "lumped" together as to whether what they "pronounce" is correct?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  The major problem--again as I see it--is that I have been forced in the recent year to extremely doubt what I hear from one "official" (or more) contradicts what other "officials" employed by our Federal government say.  

 

The messaging is so contradictory.  How can you deny that?  

 

The loss of trust in our Federal and, for many, State Governments is something that is going to take a very long time to repair.  Will whatever the results of November 3rd be able to do it?  I doubt it.  I am fearful.  Yet, I remain hopeful.  

 

 

I do not disagree with most of what you say.  However, lumping the FDA with the CDC is not fair to the FDA :).  They are completely different agencies located is different places (the FDA's HQ is in MD while the CDC is in GA).  That being said, they are both under the umbrella of HHS.  I have long had issues with the CDC (from decades ago when I worked with HIV/AIDS programs) but never had any reason to question the FDA.  The FDA apparently lives in their own little world reviewing drugs, medical devices, etc.  Their procedures (such as using independent panels to review drug/vaccine applications) have been developed over a long history and their opinions are respected around the world.  The CDC, on the other hand, is in the unenviable position of having to quickly react to various health crises.   So where the FDA is primarily proactive the CDC is often reactive. As we discovered during the early days of the HIV/Aids epidemic, the FDA does not like to deviate from their tried and proven procedures while the CDC seems to make up rules on the fly.  

 

By the way, perhaps we should toss the NIH (also under the HHS umbrella) into the mix.  They are a fine organization that has done some fabulous research over their history.  Dr. Fauci comes out of that NIH organization and, prior to COVID, had almost universal respect as a researcher, scientist, and administrator.  The man has given his lifetime to working for NIH and IMHO has no equal in our country in his field.  But at the young age of 79 he was dragged into the politics of COVID and this is not a good place for a man who is not a politician.  Many will have forgotten that in the very early days of COVID, Dr. Fauci went public in his praise for his Chinese counterparts and the competency of the Wuhan Lab. Meanwhile then one scientist has disappeared in China and one Chinese whistleblower physician quickly found himself dead (reportedly  from the same COVID for which he blew the whistle) while another Chinese doctor disappeared.  And then we had  a Chinese scientist (Li-Meng Yan who worked with COVID who fled to the USA from Hong Kong after she claimed that COVID came from the lab in Wuhan!   I have not heard Dr Fauci comment on these events but wonder if he still feels that China was playing honest with COVID.

 

Hank

[Hlitner]

35 minutes ago, LocoLoco1 said:

I took a respected Covid-19 Death Quiz.  I’m good. (Not so good, however, for an obese, smoking Diabetic over 80 that doesn’t wear a mask if they get Covid-19).

I recently posted about a good friend of my SIL who happens to be young (late 30s) and a very healthy specimen.  He caught COVID (because he was very careless) and quickly recovered.  However, he also lost his sense of smell and most ability to taste.  That all happened in Feb-March.  It is now November and he still cannot smell and has very little taste.  He has already gone to several specialists who have been able to offer no definitive prognosis (it is unknown if we will ever be able to smell or taste again).  This poor soul happens to be a wine lover and he can no longer taste wine or most food.  I suspect he would have done fine on your "Death Quiz" whatever on earth that means.  I know of another young healthy man (locally) that also survived COVID but he is now on dialysis because unfortunately his kidneys did not survive COVID.  I wonder how your Death Quiz would have worked for him.  

 

There are also numerous young folks who have suffered some major cardiac damage as the result of COVID.  In fact, the NCAA has mandated that college football players that test positive for COVID have to be carefully screened for heart inflammation which is likely permanent.  I wonder how they would do on your "Death Quiz?"  You might want to look up "myocarditis" the next time you are doing COVID research.

 

Hank

[LocoLoco1]

‘Odds’ and statistics are how Cruiseships became poster children for Virus Mismanagement, or as the OP stated, ‘a bad place.’  Whether a person or a cruiseline does or doesn’t survive this is NOT the whole story. Cruiselines aren’t surviving unscathed. Same goes for the Human Race.  People who are wise and careful will merely have ‘the Odds’ on their side... until he or she doesn’t. Nothing is guaranteed. Johns Hopkins and the CDC offer ways people can increase the Odds of a good outcome. Wall Street will handle the cruiselines’ Odds. 

[donaldsc]

4 hours ago, LocoLoco1 said:

I took a respected Covid-19 Death Quiz.  I’m good. (Not so good, however, for an obese, smoking Diabetic over 80 that doesn’t wear a mask if they get Covid-19).

 

Reference please.  Without a reference, your post is without any value.

 

DON

 

[Suzanne123]

Maybe this one?

https://riskcalc.org/COVID19/

[LocoLoco1]

I received a  ‘Covid Death Quiz’ from an Alma Mater, Carnegie-Mellon, one from the Univ. of Minnesota and another. All came back very close in approximating ‘the Odds’ I would die if I contract Covid lacking a vaccine. GOOGLE it.. there are several.  (Me?? Between 8/10ths and 9/10ths of 1 percent chance I will die if I contract Covid-19. ) If I change my behavior in a reckless way.. my odds go up. I can’t get much more isolated; deep rural Northwoods with nearly Zero human contacts per week. However...

[rkacruiser]

22 hours ago, Hlitner said:

However, lumping the FDA with the CDC is not fair to the FDA :).  They are completely different agencies located is different places (the FDA's HQ is in MD while the CDC is in GA).  That being said, they are both under the umbrella of HHS.  

 

And, from what I read in the rest of this post of yours NIH is also under the HHS umbrella.  (Thought that was the case.)  

 

Thus, in an organizational chart of HHS, the flow would ultimately lead to the top which is the Secretary of Health and Human Services.  Or, am I missing something?  

[Mary229]

15 hours ago, Suzanne123 said:

Maybe this one?

https://riskcalc.org/COVID19/

I played around with that one and it seems to have errors.  I don’t smoke, have a healthy BMI, am younger than my husband , no other factors and my risk was double that of my older,  smoking husband.    Since the international  community is contributing a large portion of their science budget toward the research a calculator created in early August is likely very out of date in early November.  It did provide 5 minutes diversion 😉

[getting older slowly]

15 hours ago, Suzanne123 said:

Maybe this one?

https://riskcalc.org/COVID19/

 

A quiz......    the risk of dying ...is 100%  one day you will

 

Covid19  vs Run over by a Bus

 

First one wear a mask, social distance, wash hands... second one  look before you cross the road

 

The main thing is you do have some control over what you do......   to reduce risk.... as is with life itself..

Edited November 3, 2020 by getting older slowly