Cruise without a vaccine

[broberts]

1 hour ago, jtwind said:

Just wait until the first person gets diagnosed as having the virus a few days after being vaccinated.  We all know it's going to happen.  Within a short matter of time, someone is going to get exposed shortly before getting vaccinated, get sick in a few days, and blame it on the vaccine.  For some, all logic and science will go down the drain, and folks will find some screwball news network that they can tune in to for confirmation of their wacky ideas.  And up will go the percentage of anti-vaxers.

 

I don't think we have to wait for such crazy. There are already those that believe the vaccine will infect people.

[Hlitner]

8 hours ago, broberts said:

 

I don't think we have to wait for such crazy. There are already those that believe the vaccine will infect people.

So true.  You can try and explain to folks that it takes several weeks for most vaccines to give you immunity and during that incubation period you can still catch the virus.   When folks insist that they got the flu from the flu vaccine (impossible) it is because they caught the flu before the vaccine could generate an immune response...or (with the flu) the vaccine might not even be effective against that particular strain of the flu.  With COVID there are currently no issues with strains which is one reason why the efficacy rates are so high from the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna).  

 

DW and I will get either the Moderna or Pfiizer vaccine when it is available to us.  As to the other vaccine candidates (still in trials) we would want to look at the data before we make a decision.  We would no hesitancy with those vaccines as the risk of NOT getting a vaccine is simply too great.

 

Hank

[goldengirl123]

On 11/10/2020 at 11:59 AM, lenquixote66 said:

I heard on the radio today that Pfizer has a vaccine that is 90% effective and that several other drug companies report the same thing.Perhaps there is light at the end of the tunnel after all.

So on a cruise ship with 5000 people with crew and passengers, and 10 % STILL get the coronavirus ever AFTER getting the vaccine, then 500 on the ship will get infected.   I think realistically, we will need to wait until there is herd immunity and this is gone completely with the help of the vaccine as well as those who already had it. 

[broberts]

10 minutes ago, goldengirl123 said:

So on a cruise ship with 5000 people with crew and passengers, and 10 % STILL get the coronavirus ever AFTER getting the vaccine, then 500 on the ship will get infected.   I think realistically, we will need to wait until there is herd immunity and this is gone completely with the help of the vaccine as well as those who already had it. 

 

Herd immunity is a nuanced theory. The effectiveness of a vaccine matters, but so do other factors. Besides it has only been theorized that herd immunity is possible for COVID. No one knows if it can be achieved.

 

The Pfizer vaccine is calculated to be 95% effective at prevention and 100% effective against a serious infection. 

[2wheelin]

16 hours ago, goldengirl123 said:

So on a cruise ship with 5000 people with crew and passengers, and 10 % STILL get the coronavirus ever AFTER getting the vaccine, then 500 on the ship will get infected.   I think realistically, we will need to wait until there is herd immunity and this is gone completely with the help of the vaccine as well as those who already had it. 

How do you think those theoretical 500 would still get the virus? Who will give it to them? Do you think herd immunity, if it could even be possible, would be 100%? You clearly do no understand the concepts of the vaccine (mutations do no matter for this vaccine) or of herd immunity. Any possibly herd immunity would depend on which strain each individual had which even if it were achievable, would be way less effective than the vaccine.

[ontheweb]

17 hours ago, goldengirl123 said:

So on a cruise ship with 5000 people with crew and passengers, and 10 % STILL get the coronavirus ever AFTER getting the vaccine, then 500 on the ship will get infected.   I think realistically, we will need to wait until there is herd immunity and this is gone completely with the help of the vaccine as well as those who already had it. 

No 10% will not get the virus under your scenario. If you follow your logic, then without the vaccine 100% would come down with the virus.

[Hlitner]

18 hours ago, goldengirl123 said:

So on a cruise ship with 5000 people with crew and passengers, and 10 % STILL get the coronavirus ever AFTER getting the vaccine, then 500 on the ship will get infected.   I think realistically, we will need to wait until there is herd immunity and this is gone completely with the help of the vaccine as well as those who already had it. 

If you wait for herd immunity you might be waiting for hundreds of years (if then).  I have tried to explain that herd immunity is a wonderful concept seldom achieved, and never achieved in short order.  Probably the best example of herd immunity is Small Pox which has been effectively eradicated after much of the world was vaccinated.  However, that was after at least 1000 years of small pox.  Polio has achieved herd immunity in the USA and many countries (but not in the entire world) but it took many decades.  But keep in mind that Polio was not near as contagious as COVID and the polio vaccine appears to give life long immunity.  The measles vaccine (in the routine MMR shot) is over 90% effective but we still have measles because there are still those in the population who refuse to be vaccinated.  Measles is actually more contagious then COVID and like COVID will likely require a very high vaccination rate (never achieved) to disappear.  

 

So what to do?  Early data says that both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA based vaccines are about 95% effective.  They have been 100% effective in preventing death.  If everyone on a ship has a vaccine with 95% efficacy it is very unlikely that there would be any cases of COVID.  Yes a case would be possible but highly unlikely.  We also need to see the data regarding the approximate 5% of COVID cases.  Why?  We now know that it takes about 1 month for either of those vaccines to achieve the desired level of immunity in a recipient.  So, if most of those cases occurred within a month after being vaccinated we might be looking at closer to 100% efficacy after a 4 week waiting period .   This is pretty typical of most vaccines..none of which work instantly.   Some experts are now predicting that herd immunity of COVID could be achieved with a 70-80% vaccination rate...but this will not happen (especially in the USA) where the anti-vaxers do their best to keep diseases circulating.

 

Currently the big question is whether a person vaccinated with the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines can possibly spread COVID without ever having had any symptoms (asymptomatic spreader).  It will be weeks or months until we have an answer to this question which would really impact on the ability to ever achieve herd immunity.  So we all eagerly await future developments while trying to keep ourselves COVID free.

 

Hank

[ilikeanswers]

1 minute ago, KnowTheScore said:

The lockdowns do not work, have not worked and cause catastrophic collateral damage. 

 

They don't work when not properly imposed I should know I'm watching the positive effects of properly instigated lockdowns as we speak. If it wasn't for the ban on international travel I would have forgotten coronavirus was a thing😂. Don't confuse incompetence with ineffective😉. 

[ilikeanswers]

14 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

the Great Barrington Declaration which has been signed by hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified and knowledgeable medical experts.    Sadly the government have not listened.   They are now facing multiple law suits on multiple levels from people who have suffered from the lockdowns.  It's going to be very costly.  

 

https://gbdeclaration.org

 

Currently signed by:

698,021 - Concerned Citizens

12,873 - Medical & Public Health Scientists

38,809 - Medical practitioner

 

5 failings of the Great Barrington Declaration's dangerous plan for COVID-19 natural herd immunity

[cruisemom42]

41 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

 

The government was offered a way out of the enormous hole they dug themselves with the catastrophic lockdowns via the Great Barrington Declaration which has been signed by hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified and knowledgeable medical experts.    Sadly the government have not listened.   They are now facing multiple law suits on multiple levels from people who have suffered from the lockdowns.  It's going to be very costly.  

 

https://gbdeclaration.org

 

Currently signed by:

698,021 - Concerned Citizens

12,873 - Medical & Public Health Scientists

38,809 - Medical practitioners

 

 

 

 

Is that including the fake names that have been reported on the list, such as "Dr. Johnny Bananas" and "Dr Person Fakename"?  🙄

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/14/coronavirus-anti-lockdown-declaration-pulls-signature-list-after-report-of-fake-names/

 

 

[Hlitner]

1 hour ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

So you're saying that if I choose to sign the petition because I believe in it and what it stands for, but opt to sign myself as "Captain Kirk" that somehow my vote doesn't count and has no meaning?

Really?

 

And let's be realistic.  How many stooges have very deliberately signed the petition that way in order to try and deliberately discredit it because it flies against government strategy?? 🙄

 

Botton line that's a really really lame and poor attempt at trying to discredit an extremely important piece of work that has been signed by 1000s of VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED scientists and medical practitioners.

 

 

 

 

I am no big fan of arbitrary lock downs but I think some have forgotten the reason cited for many of the lock downs.  While it may not result in fewer folks getting COVID (more about that in a minute) it does slow down the process which helps the patient load on healthcare facilities/hospitals.  There is an argument that by "flattening the curve" you also elongate the curve so in the long term you would have about the same number of cases...but spread over a longer time period (which helps hospitals).   However, there is now a new fly in the ointment that has never happened in history.  While we are still relatively still early in the stage of a major pandemic we have at least 2 very effective vaccines.  So by elongating that curve and then vaccinating many of those who have not yet had COVID we will likely significantly reduce the total number of folks who will have symptoms of COVID.  Time will tell and the academic statistic folks will be analyzing all this for many years.

 

Early on, based on my own experience in the healthcare/insurance industry I suggested that it would take at least 3 years until we had decent vaccines...if ever!  Fortunately, science has proven me wrong and we are now seeing what some of us would call a true scientific miracle.  And then you add to this the huge investment our government (and some others) made in supporting early production (this has never been done in history) of unproven vaccines with the hope that those vaccines would work.  So far this seems to be a strategy that has worked and will pay big dividends in saved lives and much less morbidity.  I know just enough about the process to be in awe of what has been accomplished.  It is not just the fact that vaccines have been produced in a time frame previously thought impossible, but at least two of those vaccines are based on entirely new vaccine technology (mRNA) which could well turn out to be a game changer in the world of vaccine development.  How many other viruses will quickly be conquered with this new technology is anyone's guess but the next few years are going to be very exciting in terms of vaccine (and possibly drug) development.

 

Hank 

[broberts]

2 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Actually lots of experts believe herd immunity can be achieved with as little as 20% people immune and an Oxford study believes we have already achieved it in the UK.   And no it's not anti-vaxxers that obstruct our progression to herd immunity, it is the lockdowns.  By stupidly locking down those who are not remotely at risk of Covid we are actively obstructing their ability to gain natural immunity and thus obstructing herd immunity.

 

The lockdowns do not work, have not worked and cause catastrophic collateral damage. 

 

The government was offered a way out of the enormous hole they dug themselves with the catastrophic lockdowns via the Great Barrington Declaration which has been signed by hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified and knowledgeable medical experts.    Sadly the government have not listened.   They are now facing multiple law suits on multiple levels from people who have suffered from the lockdowns.  It's going to be very costly.  

 

https://gbdeclaration.org

 

Currently signed by:

698,021 - Concerned Citizens

12,873 - Medical & Public Health Scientists

38,809 - Medical practitioners

 

 

 

 

If herd immunity was achievable at 20% then it should already exist in the US population. The fact it doesn't puts paid to this false theory.

 

The arguments against lockdowns conveniently ignores the fact that, at least in North America, the healthcare system cannot otherwise cope with resultant hospitalizations.

 

It is not known if herd immunity is even possible for COVID-19. There is currently no data to suggest that it is possible let alone achievable. Given this, it strikes me as nearly insane to suggest we should avoid mitigation attempts in favor of pursuing what may well be a deadly fantasy.

 

Edited December 15, 2020 by broberts

[Hlitner]

I want to address an issue raised here.  There is absolutely no way so-called "herd immunity" will be achieved at 20%, 30%, or even 50.%  The truth is that among healthcare professionals the concept of herd immunity is more theory then reality.   Herd immunity was achieved with Smallpox although some virologists argue that is also a myth and what happened with Smallpox is that virus was simply eradicated (I heard this theory at a lecture) which had little to do with herd immunity theory.   Herd immunity for COVID is very unlikely because of a few factors.  1.  It is a very communicable disease (easy to spread).  2.  It is more likely then not that none of the current vaccines will offer long-lasting immunity.  We are likely looking at 1-2 years..but we must wait and see.  3.  Assuming that herd immunity could be achieved at 70-80% of folks being vaccinated that is just not going to happen.  Why? These days there is vaccine resistance (anti-vax folks) and we even see that here on CC.  And, unlike the Smallpox vaccine and MMR vaccine (which have very long immunity periods) the short immunity likely offered by COVID vaccines work against herd immunity.  Math folks can draw it up on the chalk board with formulas.  But if 70% vaccination would achieve herd immunity you would need to achieve that goal in less then a year (assuming an annual cycle similar to flu) and it would need to be worldwide.  That is not going to happen

 

A top UK health expert probably expressed it best when he compared the COVID vaccination issue with flu.  It will likely be an annual vaccination (perhaps 2 years if we are lucky) and the virus will keep moving around the world.  Like any virus it will find the hosts who do not have immunity and it will continue to thrive just like influenza has done for eons.   For our part we will simply need to keep getting booster shots.

 

So folks, where am I wrong?  Take your best shot.  And I still believe that the cruise industry will not be able to resume normal operations until they mandate vaccinations for all aboard.

 

Hank  

[clo]

11 minutes ago, Hlitner said:

It will likely be an annual vaccination (perhaps 2 years if we are lucky) and the virus will keep moving around the world.  Like any virus it will find the hosts who do not have immunity and it will continue to thrive just like influenza has done for eons.   For our part we will simply need to keep getting booster shots.

And like influenza it may mutate, which could be really good or really, really bad.

[getting older slowly]

On the point of Lockdown.....

 

It works  example New Zealand... they are living in a bubble..... but they living a normal life

Here in Australia  with the second wave   it did work.... was it hard.... yes somewhat...

 

 

I am sorry but once the horse has bolted.... it is too late......and to pin all hope on a vaccine...

I feel for all the people in US...... it is a mess... and I fear you have a long road ahead.....

Do your best... mask... social distancing..... wash hands....... stay safe....

 

Don

Edited December 16, 2020 by getting older slowly

[2wheelin]

3 hours ago, clo said:

And like influenza it may mutate, which could be really good or really, really bad.

Again—the two current vaccines are based on mRNA technology and mutations are a moot point.

Influenza vaccines are not as effective and need revaccination because they do not recognize the mutations and are manufactured by previous methods which allow for short life immunity.

[2wheelin]

8 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Actually lots of experts believe herd immunity can be achieved with as little as 20% people immune and an Oxford study believes we have already achieved it in the UK.   And no it's not anti-vaxxers that obstruct our progression to herd immunity, it is the lockdowns.  By stupidly locking down those who are not remotely at risk of Covid we are actively obstructing their ability to gain natural immunity and thus obstructing herd immunity.

 

The lockdowns do not work, have not worked and cause catastrophic collateral damage. 

 

The government was offered a way out of the enormous hole they dug themselves with the catastrophic lockdowns via the Great Barrington Declaration which has been signed by hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified and knowledgeable medical experts.    Sadly the government have not listened.   They are now facing multiple law suits on multiple levels from people who have suffered from the lockdowns.  It's going to be very costly.  

 

https://gbdeclaration.org

 

Currently signed by:

698,021 - Concerned Citizens

12,873 - Medical & Public Health Scientists

38,809 - Medical practitioners

 

 

 

You refuted your own statement of “hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified and knowledgeable medical experts by showing the actual numbers. I see about 51,000 medical and 700,000 “concerned citizens” with no medical knowledge. It always clears things up when you see actual numbers. Thank you for the clarification.

Edited December 16, 2020 by 2wheelin
Spell

[cruisemom42]

48 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

You are correct Clo.  And it already has mutated into at least 30 strains/mutations.

 

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200422/Coronavirus-has-mutated-into-at-least-30-strains.aspx

 

One is given to ask exactly what strains/mutations do the individual vaccines actual protect you from and where does that leave us with any strains that are not covered?

 

Remarkably, you fail to acknowledge that top virologists agree the particular virus that causes COVID-19 mutates rather slowly for a coronavirus and much more slowly than the flu or HIV viruses. (which I posted already in answer to you....)

 

In fact, in one of the PREMIER scientific journals, Nature, an article published recently clearly explains that the mutation rate is "sluggish" (the exact word used.) The title?  "The coronavirus is mutating -- does it matter?"

 

In the same article, they also explain that while mutations to the virus have occurred and will occur, MOST of them are tiny, tiny differences that make no difference in the efficacy of any vaccines.

 

And, in fact, that mutations to the virus are, in the long run, more likely to cause damage to the virus itself than to hinder any efforts at vaccination and immunity-building:

 

"Many mutations will have no consequence for the virus’s ability to spread or cause disease, because they do not alter the shape of a protein, whereas those mutations that do change proteins are more likely to harm the virus than improve it.... “It’s much easier to break something than it is to fix it,” says Hodcroft, who is part of Nextstrain, an effort to analyse SARS-CoV-2 genomes in real time.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

 

On the other hand, most of the studies you perpetually cite are small, preliminary, and very hypothetical. (Or simply bad research published in fringe journals.....)

 

For example, the study you link to that suggests "Immune cells for common cold may recognize SARS-CoV-2" is based solely on laboratory analysis of a few samples that hint at some possibilities but certainly not any sureties regarding cross-protection. Of course, the researchers  themselves state “It still remains to be addressed whether this immune memory reactivity influences clinical outcomes and translates into some degrees of protection from more severe disease.”

 

Basically your arguments are just smoke and mirrors -- thinly disguised attempts to discourage vaccination.

 

 

[Hlitner]

KnowtheScore raised the issue of "Natural Immunity" which is the immunity that develops in a person as the result of having been infected with COVID.   It is now thought that the natural immunity from COVID will likely begin to wane within 2-3 months and gradually disappear.  Several folks (including my own in-laws) we have met who had confirmed cases of COVID have been told they should assume they can get reinfected with COVID as early as 3 months after recovering.  I have heard experts talk about this issue (on TV) and surmise that the immunity from the vaccines (they were speaking with knowledge of Pfizer and Moderna products) would outlast natural immunity but they also admitted that we need more time (measured in months) to fully understand the immunity issue.  There have already been quite a few reports (from China, UK and even the USA) of folks who have been reinfected with COVID.  Again we probably can look at the various influenza bugs which can reinfect us within 9-12 months.

 

It will be interesting to see how nations and businesses (such as cruise lines) who ultimately adopt mandatory vaccination policies deal with the natural immunity issue.  A few weeks ago I posted (elsewhere) my hunch that an Antibody test might be accepted in lieu of a vaccination record.  Since that post I have seen some info that calls the antibody tests into question.  Even the CDC has questioned the accuracy of current antibody tests.  I guess this is another of those COVID issues where it will take some time to sort out the facts.  It may well be that it is easier (and cheaper) to simply get vaccinated rather then attempt to obtain an antibody test.  Consider that eventually folks will be able to go to their pharmacy and immediately get a COVID shot at very little to no cost.  But to get an antibody test you would need to get a physician's prescription, go to a hospital or lab, and have blood drawn.   Just a look at the details of a measles antibody tests would generate a disclaimer about false positive tests (common) (a big problem with many antibody tests). 

 

Hank

[Mary229]

The medical professionals in my life, particularly those on ground zero at the hospitals disagree about recurring infection.  They "think" it is likely late developing symptoms those patients are experiencing.  Pfizer, Moderna and the others do have an ongoing vaccine longevity study currently.

 

About the mutations the general public has a weird notion of mutations.  Lets take apples and oranges which mutate like every other organic form.  Apples don't become oranges and oranges don't become apples.   Organic forms are always a spectrum and always transforming.  Static is not the nature of the biologic universe

Edited December 16, 2020 by Mary229

[2wheelin]

1 hour ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Remarkably, you fail to acknowledge that top virologists agree the particular virus that causes COVID-19 mutates rather slowly for a coronavirus and much more slowly than the flu or HIV viruses. (which I posted already in answer to you....)

 

In fact, in one of the PREMIER scientific journals, Nature, an article published recently clearly explains that the mutation rate is "sluggish" (the exact word used.) The title?  "The coronavirus is mutating -- does it matter?"

 

In the same article, they also explain that while mutations to the virus have occurred and will occur, MOST of them are tiny, tiny differences that make no difference in the efficacy of any vaccines.

 

And, in fact, that mutations to the virus are, in the long run, more likely to cause damage to the virus itself than to hinder any efforts at vaccination and immunity-building:

 

"Many mutations will have no consequence for the virus’s ability to spread or cause disease, because they do not alter the shape of a protein, whereas those mutations that do change proteins are more likely to harm the virus than improve it.... “It’s much easier to break something than it is to fix it,” says Hodcroft, who is part of Nextstrain, an effort to analyse SARS-CoV-2 genomes in real time.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

 

On the other hand, most of the studies you perpetually cite are small, preliminary, and very hypothetical. (Or simply bad research published in fringe journals.....)

 

For example, the study you link to that suggests "Immune cells for common cold may recognize SARS-CoV-2" is based solely on laboratory analysis of a few samples that hint at some possibilities but certainly not any sureties regarding cross-protection. Of course, the researchers  themselves state “It still remains to be addressed whether this immune memory reactivity influences clinical outcomes and translates into some degrees of protection from more severe disease.”

 

Basically your arguments are just smoke and mirrors -- thinly disguised attempts to discourage vaccination.

 

 

Thank you for this! Saves me having to respond to that poster. I just couldn’t decide where to start. So much blather and illogical conclusions. Maybe time again for the disclaimer about KTS the sieve’s (full of holes) posts?

[latserrof]

18 hours ago, KnowTheScore said:

... Great Barrington Declaration which has been signed by hundreds of thousands of extremely qualified and knowledgeable medical experts.    

Currently signed by: 698,021 - Concerned Citizens,  12,873 - Medical & Public Health Scientists, 38,809 - Medical practitioners

 

Not even your math makes sense.

Edited December 16, 2020 by latserrof

[cruisemom42]

46 minutes ago, KnowTheScore said:

@cruisemom42

 

Quite a few months back the virus mutated into a new strain that was given the name D614G.

 

It was significantly different to the original because it vastly increased the level of contagiousness of the virus whilst at the same time it was said to be less deadly.   It quickly became the predominant strain across Europe

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332439/

 

*Sigh*  Again, you do not understand. 

 

I cannot state it more clearly than the headline of this article, published in Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News about the D614G strain:

 

"Prevalent SARS-CoV-2 Strain More Transmissible, No Less Vulnerable to Vaccines"

 

https://www.genengnews.com/news/prevalent-sars-cov-2-strain-more-transmissible-no-less-vulnerable-to-vaccines/

 

The article summarizes findings published in Science (like Nature, one of the most reputable journals) that state that while the D614G strain is more transmissable, it also is a) no less susceptible to antibody-neutralizing drugs, b) does not seem to have a tendency to cause more severe clinical disease, and c) is likely no less susceptible to vaccine-induced immunity than is the strain that originated in China.

 

If anything, these findings would appear to strongly support the rationale for vaccination.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 16, 2020 by cruisemom42

[Hlitner]

1 minute ago, KnowTheScore said:

 

Where are your source references for this?  I am aware that this was the (very expected) mantra being put out by "Project Hysteria" in the media early in the pandemic but numerous studies have highlighted that immunity is strong and lasting.  Time will of course tell.  Of course what you completely neglect to highlight there is that the vaccines have only been out a couple of months so no-one yet know how strong or long lasting any vaccine-derived immunity is.   What is clear though is that studies for Natural Immunity have been going on longer than studies of vaccine-derived immunity.   It will be at least a year before we know whether the vaccine immunity lasts . . . . . one year.   The virus has been with us for over a year now so we clearly far more about natural immunity.

 

Note when you go looking for source references that suggest natural immunity is not lasting, to ignore those that only talk about antibody levels.   Scientists already know that natural immunity if far more concerned with T-Cell immunity and response and that antibody levels are not a reliable indicator of immunity.

 

 

Again this is the Project Hysteria sleight of hand regarding being infected with Covid twice.   We are all going to repeatedly get infected with all manner of viruses twice, it's a constant factor.  What matters is whether your body has immunity to it on those subsequent events and whether or not you can still transmit the virus to others.   There needs to be a more sincere and transparanet dialogue in relation to all this and no hiding behind terminology like "catching Covid twice" or "being infected twice".   The longer the "powers that be" persist with such instead of giving the full information, the less trust the public will continue to have in them and the medical industry.

 

 

This is utter rubbish.  The vaccines have only been out of trials a matter of weeks.   No so-called "expert" can possibly know at this stage how long immunity lasts from any of the vaccines.  It's massively disingenuous to even "surmise" and irresponsible to make such suggestions.  The science matters.  Studies matter.   We must be guided by absolute fact not Pharma rhetoric.

 

 

Again the same sleight of hand "reinfected with Covid".   I don't care if I get infected with Flu every winter season if I have immunity to it.  I wouldn't be surprised if it has been happening for years.  Equally I wouldn't care if I am regularly exposed to Covid if I have immunity to it.  I believe I've already had it and it was nothing more than very mild cold, with a dry cough for a week or so.    The next time will most likely be even less symptomatic.  

 

 

 

As stated elsewhere there would be absolutely no point in cruise lines mandating vaccinations.  It would equate to discrimination for a start but it would have no practical value as the vaccines thus far only protect the vacinee and have not been tested to determine whether they prevent a person spreading the virus.   Aside from which at least 1 in 10 people vaccinated (likely more) won't be protected anyway due to the vaccine's efficacy rate.

 

You're simply pushing a "mandate vaccines" mantra here over and over and it just doesn't hang together.  The cruise lines will lose a huge amount of customer base by attempting to discriminate people.

 

It keeps coming back to one of my favorite healthcare quotes which is "we don't know what we don't know."  I still remember early on with this thing (might have been in May or June) another poster being annoyed when I posted that quote and he insisted we already knew everything about COVID.  I worked with the HIV/Aids epidemic in the 70s before we even knew it was a virus.  Now, over forty years later scientists and medical researchers are still learning new things about HIV.  COVID and the original SARS virus will be the same in that we will keep learning.  What is unique about COVID is that science has miraculously developed vaccines so darn fast and there are still a lot of unknowns about the vaccines although the evidence does seem to indicate they are very safe (DW and I will get vaccinated as soon as possible).  

 

The CDC has shown some degree of skepticism about reinfections and have taken a conservative position.  While they have acknowledged there are reported cases of reinfection they also seem to be hanging their hats on the "we don't know what we don't know" and need time to learn

Reinfection with COVID-19 | CDC

 

You can also find various articles showing lots of concern about reinfections but not offering a lot of scientific evidence of what is happening (i.e. is it really reinfection or could it be that the person never recovered from their initial bout)

LATEST! More Cases Of Coronavirus Reinfections Emerging Among Cured Patients In China Causing Concern - Thailand Medical New

 

 

While recently in Key West we met a family (while lounging at the pool) where all the members have been infected (and recovered) from COVID.  They were treated by the infectious disease department at the Cleveland Clinic so got some very good care.  They were specifically told that they were likely immune from reinfection for at least 3 months.  They were also told that after 3 months they should assume they can again get COVID and should act accordingly.   The "Mom" in that family told us that they would go back to self-isolation after New Years which is about 3 months after they all had COVID.   But lets be very honest, enough time has not passed for anyone to be certain about reinfection.  And apparently the existing antibody tests are not accurate enough to give researchers a high level of confidence.  

 

Pushing the "vaccine mantra" as you put it, is how this will play out around the world.  There will be many critics of the mandatory vaccine policies that will soon spread around the world but I think the critics will be largely ignored.  It is not wise to ignore skeptics when they have a basis for their skepticism, but the cost of COVID (in terms of lives and economics) is so great that authorities are going to go the vaccine route.  In some ways I think the skeptics (such as yourself) are going to be spitting into a very strong wind.  So, if the EU says you cannot enter without having been vaccinated that is the way it will be!  

 

If you look at the latest cruise news both Richard Fein (RCI) and Frank del Rio (NCL Holdings) have already started to talk about vaccinations.  Fein said that RCI would mandate vaccinations for their crew but are still studying whether to do this for passengers.  Del Rio seems to be in that same camp.  I think the decision as to whether to mandate vaccination for passengers will be taken out of their hands by the governments around the world who will likely impose vaccinations as a condition for allowing cruise ships into their countries (this is my own speculation but I would be willing to bet on it).  It will likely happen right here at home where I think the CDC (where many are not very pro cruise) will likely add mandatory vaccination to their Guidelines for the resumption of cruising.

 

You and I might agree that this kind of mandatory vaccination policy is premature, but desperate folks do desperate things and governments as well as corporate executives are now desperate.  I also think that the population is so "COVID weary" that they will go along with almost any policy that will get them out of the house.

 

Hank

[Hlitner]

16 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

*Sigh*  Again, you do not understand. 

 

I cannot state it more clearly than the headline of this article, published in Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News about the D614G strain:

 

"Prevalent SARS-CoV-2 Strain More Transmissible, No Less Vulnerable to Vaccines"

 

https://www.genengnews.com/news/prevalent-sars-cov-2-strain-more-transmissible-no-less-vulnerable-to-vaccines/

 

The article summarizes findings published in Science (like Nature, one of the most reputable journals) that state that while the D614G strain is more transmissable, it also is a) no less susceptible to antibody-neutralizing drugs, b) does not seem to have a tendency to cause more severe clinical disease, and c) is likely no less susceptible to vaccine-induced immunity than is the strain that originated in China.

 

If anything, these findings would appear to strongly support the rationale for vaccination.

 

 

 

 

So far, all the info I have seen talks specifically about mRNA vaccines (i.e. Pfizer and Moderna) and does not address the other vaccine candidates that use more traditional technology (i,e, J and J, Chinese, Russian, etc).   DW raised a terrific issue when she asked me what I thought would happen if some of the vaccines still in the pipeline (such as J&J) would have a much lower efficacy rate (such as 60%).  While the FDA has talked about approving vaccines with efficacy as low as 50% they now have to deal with the high bar set by the mRNA vaccines.  So DW asked would we accept a 50% vaccine when Pfizer and Moderna seem to be at the 95% level (which is simply amazing).  I have no idea how this will play out and it is really unique in history.  The closest thing I can recall is when the Salk Vaccine was overtaken by the Sabin Vaccine...but there were a few years between those products.  

 

So here is the dilemma for the FDA's COVID Panel and Director.  If having already approved 2 vaccines with about a 95% efficacy rate can they morally approve other vaccines with significantly lower efficacy rates?  I would love to be a fly on the wall when that issue is discussed.  And take this one step further and speculate whether some governments who might impose a mandatory vaccination policy for entry might go as far as to only accept vaccines with high efficacy rates.  Boggles the mind :).

 

Hank