Cruise without a vaccine

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, clo said:

Alright, I'm going to tell y'all what I've told not a single person. 

I have some symptoms. Non-respiratory ones but definite symptoms. Getting tested tomorrow. And I know that a negative will mean little to nothing. So I'm already quarantining. And getting increasingly p***ed off at people who are doing their best to kill people.

Best of luck to you. Quarantine, and then go on to live normally, or at least what can be considered normal in these strange times.

 

Repeat, a vaccine is on the way soon. Rinse, and then repeat again a vaccine is on the way soon. (probably need two doses.) 

[navybankerteacher]

9 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Citing a removed, non refereed article in a student newsletter is hardly definitive. (Presuming, of course that is the actual site.) Did it not occur to the reporter that the article may have been removed because it contained errors?

I think it is best to simply not respond to folks who clearly lack a grasp on reality - or are intentionally posting absurdities to generate attention.   I feel pity for them, but I am not going to engage in debate with them.  

[clo]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

I think it is best to simply not respond to folks who clearly lack a grasp on reality - or are intentionally posting absurdities to generate attention.   I feel pity for them, but I am not going to engage in debate with them.  

And since they're not interested in facts you're not going to change their minds either.

[Toofarfromthesea]

16 hours ago, clo said:

There's too much reputable info for me to waste my time on the other. So no.

 

Must not venture out of your bubble.  A study by John's Hopkins becomes unreliable because the 'establishment' media ignores it.

[Toofarfromthesea]

12 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Citing a removed, non refereed article in a student newsletter is hardly definitive. (Presuming, of course that is the actual site.) Did it not occur to the reporter that the article may have been removed because it contained errors?

 

No, that is not what Hopkins said about the study.  But stay in your bubble.  The article I linked to had a link to the disappeared study, but it would violate your bubble to read it.

What is YOUR theory of how increased covid deaths are accompanied by an unprecedented decline in heart disease death?  And what is your theory about how all of these covid deaths resulted in no increase in overall all-events deaths?

[Toofarfromthesea]

12 hours ago, broberts said:

 

Citing a removed, non refereed article in a student newsletter is hardly definitive. (Presuming, of course that is the actual site.) Did it not occur to the reporter that the article may have been removed because it contained errors?

 

BTW, the new HQC study was peer-reviewed.  As was the censored Danisk mask study.  

It has become the media's role to cover the news.  With a pillow.  Until it stops moving.

[navybankerteacher]

(Some side effects of the COVID-deniers efforts to ignore a reality they would prefer to hide from rather than face:

a) Increased infections, hospitalizations and deaths

b) Prolonging the pandemic by contributing to its spread

c) Leading to serious economic collapse due to massively increased government expenditures coupled with decrease in tax revenue

d) Long term significant tax increases by Fedeal and local governments to recoup losses

e) Increasing cruise fares (once cruising does resume) necessitated by  increased health precautions

f)Diminished ability to afford cruising because those with sufficient disposable income will be paying significantly higher taxes, limiting their ability to pay even today’s fares - much less the increased fares.

 

Thank you, Deniers.

 

(My purpose is solely to raise these issues with only CC members who are willing to accept reality)

Edited November 28, 2020 by navybankerteacher
Missed point

[broberts]

Truly amazing that the U.S. Federal government would spend a trillion or more for a disease that doesn't exist. Or if it does is no worse than a cold. Or if it is worse, will not kill anyone. Or . . . Must be mass hysteria. Imagine that, 8 billion people all imagining the same deadly pandemic.

[ontheweb]

54 minutes ago, broberts said:

Truly amazing that the U.S. Federal government would spend a trillion or more for a disease that doesn't exist. Or if it does is no worse than a cold. Or if it is worse, will not kill anyone. Or . . . Must be mass hysteria. Imagine that, 8 billion people all imagining the same deadly pandemic.

You nailed it. We are all just having the same collective nightmare except those who know it is a hoax and have been trying to tell us all the truth.😢

[evandbob]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/covid-19-vaccination-passport-for-tourists-is-now-in-development/ar-BB1brZqZ?li=BBnbklE

 

Travelers who receive the COVID-19 shot will likely have confirmation of their vaccination digitally linked to their official passports. 

[navybankerteacher]

5 minutes ago, evandbob said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/covid-19-vaccination-passport-for-tourists-is-now-in-development/ar-BB1brZqZ?li=BBnbklE

 

Travelers who receive the COVID-19 shot will likely have confirmation of their vaccination digitally linked to their official passports. 

Probably a good idea - but that means EVERYONE will have to turn their passports in for the linking -- and that is after a system for such linking is developed -- how long do you think those two minor little glitches will take to work out?

 

I am inclined to think that it will make a lot more sense to develop a hard-to-counterfeit vaccination record to be submitted along with the passport (or birth certificate and ID).  This would satisfy the economy-minded who resist the notion of getting a passport in the first place.

[sverigecruiser]

8 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Probably a good idea - but that means EVERYONE will have to turn their passports in for the linking -- and that is after a system for such linking is developed -- how long do you think those two minor little glitches will take to work out?

 

 

Can't they just link a vaccination record to the passport number I assume every passport have and at immigration they just look it up on a computer? Seems much easier.

[navybankerteacher]

3 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

Can't they just link a vaccination record to the passport number I assume every passport have and at immigration they just look it up on a computer? Seems much easier.

I suppose that could be done - of course it would mean that the US practice of not requiring a passport for citizens  taking a closed loop cruise  would have to be reconsidered (not a bad thing).

[sverigecruiser]

44 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

I suppose that could be done - of course it would mean that the US practice of not requiring a passport for citizens  taking a closed loop cruise  would have to be reconsidered (not a bad thing).

 

It could also be linked to some other kind  of id.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, sverigecruiser said:

 

It could also be linked to some other kind  of id.

Probably —- but who in his right mind would rather go to a state Motor Vehicle  License office to prove he had been vaccinated  than simply pay for a passport?   

 

Perhaps such facilities are better run where you are, but here  .......

[slidergirl]

Clo - sending you best wishes for a negative test outcome.  Thank you for being responsible and doing a pre-emptive quarantine.  

 

For the question about "why have deaths from heart disease decreased?":  Well, people with co-morbidities die all the time from other issues.  Whatever is the primary issue, usually the acute one, is listed as the cause.  I have diabetes - if I contract COVID again and die, it won't be from diabetes, but from consequences incident to COVID.  COVID is not just a respiratory virus.

[clo]

15 minutes ago, slidergirl said:

 COVID is not just a respiratory virus

Yeah. The man I referred to had all the symptoms except the respiratory ones. And the few I have aren't respiratory either. At least not yet.:) 

[sverigecruiser]

7 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Probably —- but who in his right mind would rather go to a state Motor Vehicle  License office to prove he had been vaccinated  than simply pay for a passport?   

 

Perhaps such facilities are better run where you are, but here  .......

 

I agree that a passport is better.

[broberts]

Tying a vaccination to any sort of government id will not happen anytime soon. First one would have to overcome the privacy issues. Then one would have to address jurisdictional issues. And don't forget the freedom watchers, I can't see any acquiescing to more government tracking.

 

There is no need to reinvent the wheel. While it is a foreign concept to many Americans, like passports much of the rest of the world knows about and usually travels with a (often yellow) vaccination record. Vaccination registries do exist in the U.S., see the CDC website for details. 

[broberts]

I don't think vaccinations are going to significantly affect cruising thru 2021. The current CDC guidance is likely going to remain in effect. The only real questions in my mind are when will cruise lines risk restarting and will enough people book when they do?

[cruisemom42]

On 11/27/2020 at 5:38 PM, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

So, what's your take on the censored Johns Hopkins study that shows that in spite of all the so-called Covid deaths, the total number of excess deaths in 2020 isvessentially 0.  Suggesting a whole lot of misclassification has been going on.

Or the recent HCQ study where early stage infected were given the whole treatment of HCQ+zinc+antibiotic and showed excellent results?

 

On 11/27/2020 at 6:02 PM, Toofarfromthesea said:

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/11/27/johns-hopkins-study-saying-covid-19-has-relatively-no-effect-on-deaths-in-u-s-deleted-after-publication-n1178930

 

https://www.theblaze.com/news/peer-reviewed-hydroxychloroquine-study-hospitalizations

 

I have put off responding to this because it takes a lot of time, effort, and reading to respond thoughtfully to posts like these. However, I hate seeing people try to bludgeon others with opinions based on either faulty science (the first one) or a faulty interpretation of what is actually not-bad science (the second one). 

 

A "fact" or even a "study" in and of itself only makes sense as part of a larger framework of facts that help us to understand a bigger theory. (It is clear from your response earlier above regarding scientific theory that you are not actually a scientist.)

 

The HCQ study is in fact an interesting one and I will tackle it first.

 

It seems, on the face of it, to be a well-conducted study and is published in a reputable journal. However, keep in mind that it is NOT a randomized, controlled, blinded trial, but rather a retrospective analysis of treatment, which is certainly not a gold standard for effectiveness and lays open a number of questions that cannot be answered. For example, were doctors more likely to give the three drugs to patients who they thought would likely benefit from them and/or who were less likely to suffer any ill effects?  That certainly is possible when studies aren't blinded and can have a large impact on the outcome. The same can be said for patients -- they were not blinded and knew what treatment they were receiving.

 

Interestingly, the authors also mention that it may in fact be the zinc in the combination that is responsible for some of the positive effect, as zinc plays a role in boosting immunity and levels can often be lowered in older patients or those taking certain drugs (e.g., the authors go so far as to say "Zinc deficiency might explain why certain patient groups seem not to benefit from HCQ monotherapy."  In other words, it is entirely possible that it is the zinc that is effective and not the HCQ). Worryingly, the others also state that "vital parameters were not available for the majority of patients."  So at most, it provides a single data point that requires more study. 

 

The other study is more difficult.

 

First of all, the author is not a physician but is part of JH's school of economics. Thus the framework and analysis is undertaken from an economic and not medical POV. Also the author's analysis is based on "raw data" from the CDC -- which even more charitable types might refer to as "messy" at this stage. Further, the comments (published in the Johns Hopkins student newsletter) were taken from a webinar and not from any peer-reviewed publication. 

 

While there is certainly some food for thought and perhaps a call for a more rigorous analysis at some point, I can certainly see the point of Johns Hopkins in almost immediately retracting it -- as it was jumped on by those who would seek to use it to continue to minimize the impact of the disease. In short, Briand was likely trying to be provocative in a talk/lecture and perhaps convince researchers of the need to look at these questions, but I doubt she intended to suggest that this graph is in any way definitive taken by itself.

 

So as you can see -- if you merely read the headlines without taking the time to understand the actual "facts" it is all to easy to fall into the trap of merely parroting whatever organization or news outlet is using them to peddle their own angle...

 

 

[LGW59]

2 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

A good point.  Just think how many illegal immigrants there are roaming around the UK with false papers.  People who beat the system easily.  If you start certification of Covid vaccines you're just going to end up with some of the population genuinely certified and tons of people falsely certified. 

 

Then of course you have the issue that inevitably the computer systems will get hacked and your private data will get stolen.  Not a good thing for your medical details imo.   We already have far too much personal data at the mercy of these systems and associated companies.

🙄

[clo]

2 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

And neither does being vaccinated

I'd say a vaccinated person is safer than someone who tested negative. I know someone who was sick for weeks and tested negative four times. And a negative test today doesn't mean they would test negative - or BE negative - a day later.

[LGW59]

4 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

I would totally disagree.  Vaccinated people can and DO still spread virus and disease.  There are numerous examples of it.  I just posted 5 factual examples here:

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2766080-will-vaccines-now-be-required/page/3/#comments

 

So no, vaccines are simply NOT going to be any kind of magic bullet.  

 

I agree that testing kits have been poor and given plenty of false-positives and false-negatives.  That needs to change.  It's interesting how they have been prepared to pile $billions into vaccine production but haven't bothered to spend a few $million on good reliable testing kits.  I have strong suspicions why that is the case.  Do we really think it is beyond the wit and technical ability of the medical industry to be able to create a 100% accurate Covid test??  Really?  But we trust them with a vaccine?

 

Either way, being vaccinated and waving any kind of certificate is not going to see you gain any special privileges.  You can still get Covid, you can still spread Covid to others so we are all the same.

 

If you become Covid positive on-board you're not going to be exempt from isolation just because you have a bit of paper in your hand.

 

Frankly I'd be far far happier being on a ship with people who have previously had Covid and thus got natural immunity than a ship full of people who have only been vaccinated.  I'd feel much safer with the naturally immune demographic and for very sound reasons.

I just posted 5 factual examples here:

 

Some might call them novels.

 

[cruisemom42]

11 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

I would totally disagree.  Vaccinated people can and DO still spread virus and disease.  There are numerous examples of it.  I just posted 5 factual examples here:

 

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/topic/2766080-will-vaccines-now-be-required/page/3/#comments

 

So no, vaccines are simply NOT going to be any kind of magic bullet.  

 

Please. You are the type who posts the one exception out of 1,000 and then cries "But we can't trust the vaccine to work!"

 

What you should have posted is this "Vaccinated people can and do occasionally spread virus and disease."  HOWEVER you also fail to mention that some vaccines can and do protect against infection -- for example, vaccines for Hepatitis and HPV.  

 

We don't know yet whether the COVID vaccine(s) are or are not protective against infection. It may or it may not. But first it is more important to develop one that keeps people from DYING, end of story. Other endpoints can come later.

 

Also you are apparently unaware of the work that NIH is doing to improve testing speed and accuracy: 

 

"The National Institutes of Health is investing $248.7 million in new technologies to address challenges associated with COVID-19 testing (which detects SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus). NIH’s Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics (RADx) initiative has awarded contracts to seven biomedical diagnostic companies to support a range of new lab-based and point-of-care tests that could significantly increase the number, type and availability of tests by millions per week."

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-delivering-new-covid-19-testing-technologies-meet-us-demand