Cruise without a vaccine

[Toofarfromthesea]

4 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

If you would pause for just a moment to think, you would realize that, in dealing with previously non-experienced questions, “science” begins with observed cases - in short “anecdotes”.

 

 Sure, as time goes on “science” builds its data base, and collected observed data comes to trump individual cases — but these are still early days:  there is insufficient studied data at this point to call what we have “science”.

 

Anecdotal evidence is not everything by any means, but it is better than nothing.

 

Perhaps science begins with the decades long consensus about the ineffectiveness of masks in controlling the spread of infectious respiratory diseases.  Perhaps science begins with a complete lack of any evidence that a virus is more virulent after 10 PM than before it.  Perhaps science starts with understanding that the potential danger is unaffected by the cause of the large crowd, whether it be a football game, a violent protest, or a celebration.  Perhaps science starts by not checking our critical reasoning ability at the door.

[clo]

12 minutes ago, sverigecruiser said:

Starting today bars and restaurants are not allowed to serve alcohol after 10 pm and people must leave by 10.30.

 

This is beginning in the US also.

[slidergirl]

27 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

No, if she reads the studies she will learn that her maladies are the exception, not the rule.  Unless you are suggesting that we can draw scientific conclusions from a small number of anecdotal reports.

I couldn't stay away.  Shoot me.

 

Are you saying that the over 115,000 people in Survivor Corps with "maladies" are exceptions?  What about the one 15,000 of us who participated in the Indiana University study on COVID and LT-19 and the "maladies" we have?  I think that is a tad more than "small number." There are more studies on the website that we participate or have participated in.  So, at least some scientists take us seriously.  I don't think Dr,. Fauci took time out of his busy schedule to talk to us because we were a small number.  

 

Even today, in the seminar we had with Dr. Gupta, he strongly recommended all to get the vaccine when it is available.  

 

The Pfizer study still have vaccinated people take all the prescribed public health precautions rather than "going rogue" and seeing what happened.  And, with such a short test time, no determination can be made so far as it's antibody duration.  

 

Vaccination along with public health precautions are going to be here for a long time
!

[2wheelin]

40 minutes ago, clo said:

This is beginning in the US also.

That’s yesterday’s news here. Restaurants and bars closed, no outdoor dining. Take out only. Gyms closed. No wedding or funeral receptions allowed. People advised/expected to integrate with no other households socially—especially Thanksgiving,

[SelectSys]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

 

Of course they are doing science...

 

None of us have seen the actually interim data produced by these trials. All we have are press releases which are most certainly not science.

Exactly!  These companies (with government oversight) are in the process of collecting "tons" of data to determine basic effectiveness of the vaccines along with variability in the results based on a multitude of factors. Just as importantly they are looking at possible negative effects.

 

Press releases and stories from the press are full of self-interest whether to pump a stock price or sell advertising.

 

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

I think you and NBT are talking about 2 different things.. Her anecdotal evidence should be seen as a warning to those who do not take this pandemic seriously. Not everyone has her experience, but that does not make it not real.

 

I am not sure what point NBT was trying to make.  I simply reacted to a statement NBT made indicating that acting on anecdotal information (really data) is sometimes problematic.  Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I accept everyone's word on this site at face value.  Who am I to think one's experience isn't real?  In this case I believe every word of the poster's experience with COVID, including her after affects.

 

I personally take COVID very seriously.  My health is pretty good, but my age is starting to drift into the danger zone of poor outcomes.  I wear a mask, largely stay at home, social distance, etc.  I have made the decision that I am not going on any big trips - including cruises - until after I have received an effective vaccine.  As the saying goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

 

53 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

...  Perhaps science begins with a complete lack of any evidence that a virus is more virulent after 10 PM than before it... 

 

I would believe that the rationale for these 10pm shutdowns is that as more alcohol is consumed, the more likely it is for people to "let down their guard" and not maintain distancing.  I have seen this at our local pizza parlor when goin in for pick up service. 

 

My governor demonstrated this type of behavior for all to see at a high end dinner party with lobbyist friends:

 

 

53 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Perhaps science starts by not checking our critical reasoning ability at the door.

 

Critical reasoning has been replaced by critical theory in many ways these days.  I find myself viewing my thoughts as somewhat quaint and behind in these progressive times.

Edited November 20, 2020 by SelectSys

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

No, if she reads the studies she will learn that her maladies are the exception, not the rule.  Unless you are suggesting that we can draw scientific conclusions from a small number of anecdotal reports.

That does not make her maladies less real. It is a possible outcome that cannot be ignored.

[clo]

2 hours ago, slidergirl said:

And, with such a short test time, no determination can be made so far as it's antibody duration.

This is a HUGE question mark. Thanks for returning. 

[broberts]

Given that the two likely vaccines we know of are only around 95% effective. Is there any way to determine if a given recipient is protected?

 

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Perhaps science begins with the decades long consensus about the ineffectiveness of masks in controlling the spread of infectious respiratory diseases.  Perhaps science begins with a complete lack of any evidence that a virus is more virulent after 10 PM than before it.  Perhaps science starts with understanding that the potential danger is unaffected by the cause of the large crowd, whether it be a football game, a violent protest, or a celebration.  Perhaps science starts by not checking our critical reasoning ability at the door.

"decades long consensus"?      CRAP!         There is no such consensus.

 

Common sense (as well as science)  shows that any filtration of exhalation is likely to limit the transmission of airborne agents.  Even if deniers such as you do not like the idea of being asked to wear a mask. 

 

Of course time of day is not likely to have effect upon virulence -- but time of night, as the evening lengthens, surely does have effect upon the conduct of people continue drinking at public houses.

 

If you cannot understand that, as the number of possible carriers increases, the likelihood of transmission by possible carriers must also increase. 

 

Try to understand what "science" means before continuing inane blather based upon you failure to comprehend its very notion.

 

You should consider limiting you absurd pretenses -- and try to understand that science really  starts with observation -- and the first such observations in any context obviously must be seen as individual - and ANECDOTAL.

 

 

[SelectSys]

23 minutes ago, broberts said:

Given that the two likely vaccines we know of are only around 95% effective. Is there any way to determine if a given recipient is protected?

 

 

Nope - maybe with time some secondary studies will show some additional factors to shed light on those who the vaccine works for and who it does not. For me, I will take the vaccine and "roll the dice" that it will work for me as well as dramatically reduce the transmission rate.

 

Long term, it's  not clear what will happen as the virus mutates in response to many factors. Will the vaccines continue to work?  Will the virus evolve to something less harmful?  Will the immunity be durable for most? ...

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-viruses-evolve-180975343/

"The question is how long that immunity will last: for a lifetime, like smallpox, or just a few years, like flu? In part, that will depend on whether the vaccine induces a permanent antibody response or just a temporary one. But it also depends on whether the virus can change to evade the antibodies generated by the vaccine. Although coronaviruses don’t accumulate mutations as fast as flu viruses, they do still change. And at least one, which causes bronchitis in chickens, has evolved new variants that aren’t covered by previous vaccines. But at this point, no one knows what to expect from SARS-CoV-2."

 

My own expectation is that we will be taking annual coronavirus vaccines for quite sometime. Maybe it will get mixed in at some point with my flu vaccine.  Who really knows?

 

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, broberts said:

Given that the two likely vaccines we know of are only around 95% effective. Is there any way to determine if a given recipient is protected?

 

“only around 95% effective”???? Wow - a 95% effective rate (if that proves to be the case in practice) is damn high - hardly to be denigrated by an “only”.   It would seem, however, that barring some unlikely distinctive tell-tale, the only definitive determinant would be the recipient’s contracting the disease - because his not contracting it could simply arise from not being exposed.

[broberts]

So, for those with serious risk factors congregate activities like cruising are probably not a good idea?

[ontheweb]

9 hours ago, broberts said:

Given that the two likely vaccines we know of are only around 95% effective. Is there any way to determine if a given recipient is protected?

 

ONLY 95%----really???? 95% is incredibly high. Remember when people were complaining that the FDA would accept a vaccine that had an efficacy of 50%?

[ontheweb]

19 hours ago, clo said:

Please provide reputable and verifiable citations to support all these claims.

It will be interesting to see the citations they come up with about no serious long term side effects when the virus has been around for less than a year. Think about that for a second, long term effects for something that has been around for less than a year; it should not take much longer than a second to think about that.

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 11/20/2020 at 7:42 PM, navybankerteacher said:

"decades long consensus"?      CRAP!         There is no such consensus.

Name one prior pandemic where the use of masks was advocated.  We had a major pandemic in 1968 and I don't recall any of the people in the movie Woodstock wearing masks, nor do I remember anyone scolding them for wearing masks.  It is not a coincidence that the initial guidance from the whole public health community back in Feb-March was to NOT wear masks.  I don't remember anyone wearing masks during the H1N1 pandemic or, frankly ANY respiratory pandemic before this.  So you can bloviate "CRAP" all you want but the fact is that I have clear evidence for my statement but all you have is nothing.  Masks were never seen as a control element in these pandemics.  It is almost as if they knew they would be useless.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31201-0/fulltext

 

Common sense (as well as science)  shows that any filtration of exhalation is likely to limit the transmission of airborne agents.  Even if deniers such as you do not like the idea of being asked to wear a mask. 

"Common sense" is the scientific argument you make when there isn't any scientific evidence for your position.  

 

Of course time of day is not likely to have effect upon virulence -- but time of night, as the evening lengthens, surely does have effect upon the conduct of people continue drinking at public houses.

And yet the contact tracers find no evidence of this being a cause of spreading.  There is that "common sense", flying in the face of science again.  Science requires evidence, not "Common sense".  The history of science is chock full of "common sense" that turned out to be nonsense.

 

If you cannot understand that, as the number of possible carriers increases, the likelihood of transmission by possible carriers must also increase. 
 

Try to understand what "science" means before continuing inane blather based upon you failure to comprehend its very notion.

I understand very well what science is.  More importantly I understand what is NOT science.  Models are not science.  The opinions of scientists that are not backed up with actual studies is not science. "Common sense" is not science.  "Survey" studies are not science, except as a basis for forming a testable hypothesis.

 

You should consider limiting you absurd pretenses -- and try to understand that science really  starts with observation -- and the first such observations in any context obviously must be seen as individual - and ANECDOTAL.

Real science makes observations, formulates a testable hypothesis and then designs an experiment to test that hypothesis.  And then is subjected to rigorous review and attempts to duplicate the results.  NONE of which have happened with respect to masks or shutdowns or social distancing.  We aren't operating on science, we are operating on the "Common sense" of public health officials who have never been accountable for their past blunders, like HIV and the H1N1 pandemic presided over by Biden and Fauci.

 

 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 11/21/2020 at 4:37 AM, ontheweb said:

It will be interesting to see the citations they come up with about no serious long term side effects when the virus has been around for less than a year. Think about that for a second, long term effects for something that has been around for less than a year; it should not take much longer than a second to think about that.

 

Yes, we don't know either way.  But when we don't know whether A or B is right, we don't just assume A is right and act accordingly.  At least we don't do that as a matter of science.

[broberts]

18 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Name one prior pandemic where the use of masks was advocated

 

1918 Influenza pandemic. Interestingly some of today's issues were around then. May be locked, https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/03/us/mask-protests-1918.html&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjJ0YjtyZbtAhWkElkFHXQuAukQFnoECAYQBA&usg=AOvVaw0Tur3qtMYBvnbDuVKXv8NT

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

The 1919 pandemic - the most recent comparable challenge in US history - had the same recommendations for mask wearing - and the same ignorant opposition from those who believed their gut feelings outweighed SCIENCE . 

 

Your closing cheap shot at Dr. Fauci (who is likely the most competent practitioner in this matter) demonstrates your political slant. 

 

You should really try to understand what constitutes “science” before trying to use mis-statements about it to support your political angle.

[SelectSys]

On 11/20/2020 at 9:42 AM, navybankerteacher said:

If you would pause for just a moment to think, you would realize that, in dealing with previously non-experienced questions, “science” begins with observed cases - in short “anecdotes”...

 

Anecdotal evidence is not everything by any means, but it is better than nothing.

 

Often times science doesn't build on observed data and experiments are is based more in theoretical understanding and a model of what is happening, to accept or reject the null hypothesis.

 

Look at physics as a prime example where the theoretical part of the science leads the experimental side.  More and more this is happening in chemistry/biology where explicit theoretical modeling drives science forward as computation has gotten so much better.  This includes today's RNA vaccines.

 

On 11/20/2020 at 6:42 PM, navybankerteacher said:

"decades long consensus"?      CRAP!         There is no such consensus.

 

Try to understand what "science" means before continuing inane blather based upon you failure to comprehend its very notion.

 

You should consider limiting you absurd pretenses -- and try to understand that science really  starts with observation -- and the first such observations in any context obviously must be seen as individual - and ANECDOTAL.

 

What is it going to be, do you like depending on anecdotal "evidence" or do you believe that anecdotes are simply observations/data?  You need to pick a side and be consistent.

 

BTW - "colorful language" may work on cable TV, but it really isn't necessary to make an argument.   As a "teacher," I would have expected you would have learned to motivate students rather than insult them.  Just my $.02

Edited November 22, 2020 by SelectSys

[navybankerteacher]

5 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

 

Often times science doesn't build on observed data and experiments are is based more in theoretical understanding and a model of what is happening, to accept or reject the null hypothesis.

 

Look at physics as a prime example where the theoretical part of the science leads the experimental side.  More and more this is happening in chemistry/biology where explicit theoretical modeling drives science forward as computation has gotten so much better.  This includes today's RNA vaccines.

 

 

What is it going to be, do you like depending on anecdotal "evidence" or do you believe that anecdotes are simply observations/data?  You need to pick a side and be consistent.

 

BTW - "colorful language" may work on cable TV, but it really isn't necessary to make an argument.   As a "teacher," I would have expected you would have learned to motivate students rather than insult them.  Just my $.02

Science is built upon “observations/data” - which are then compiled and studied to determine valid conclusions.  In any new field it can take time for significant data to be accumulated and analaysed to start preaching “proven science”. Frequently later disclosures require the modification of early “scientific” determinations.   There are very good grounds in this year of COVID to recognize that.

 

A number of early “scientific” pronouncements minimized the efficacy of face masks - now most responsible voices in the field of epidemiology - as well as its application in handling COVID - recognize that wearing face masks does limit spread and consequent deaths.

[SelectSys]

7 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Science is built upon “observations/data” - which are then compiled and studied to determine valid conclusions.  

 

I guess we agree then - Create a hypothesis, design the experiment, collect the data, analyze the data formally, reject/accept the hypothesis at a certain confidence level and move on with more knowledge (at a minimum the hypothesis was wrong)

 

Perhaps I simply misunderstood your first reference to anecdotes as being evidence rather than simply data/observation.

 

Edited November 22, 2020 by SelectSys

[navybankerteacher]

When comparing this year’s situation with previous experiences, it is relevant to consider the varying levels of response which might seem justified by the risks.

 

The 1919 flu pandemic took about 675,000 US lives. (And it is believed that the late recommendations for masks helped keep it from going higher).

 

The 1957-58 Influenza -A took 116,000 US lives - that was in a two year rampage which cost less than half of what this year’s still-ongoing COVID is costing.

 

The 1968 Influenza -A took 100,000 lives.

 

The 2009 H1N1 took 12,469 lives.

 

It seems that a more vigorous response is indicated this year.

[clo]

37 minutes ago, SelectSys said:

BTW - "colorful language" may work on cable TV, but it really isn't necessary to make an argument.   As a "teacher," I would have expected you would have learned to motivate students rather than insult them.  Just my $.02

Are you a moderator?

[SelectSys]

24 minutes ago, clo said:

Are you a moderator?

Nope - just reacting to a post  with an opinion.  

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, SelectSys said:

Nope - just reacting to a post  with an opinion.  

Of course, my designating “crap” as “crap” is also reacting to a post with an opinion.  My reaction, to which you took exception, was to a post claiming that masks had not been advocated in previous pandemics— when in the only comparable US pandemic in the past century masks had indeed been advocated.   

 

That post contained such unmitigated, uninformed blather that “crap” is an understatement.