Cruise without a vaccine

[SelectSys]

20 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

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.

 

That is really all this site is - opinions.  Those opinions provide the entertainment value to keep one coming back along with some nuggets of travel advice.  My only exception to your post, was your statement regarding "anecdotal evidence."  To me this statement is a misnomer and was the basis of my original post.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Personally I have no problem with masks and use them.  Masks have been useful in controlling infection/contamination for many, many years.  My daughter works in a biotech lab and mask wearing and PPE was in place well before COVID.  Why?  Why do medical staffs wear masks performing operations or caring for some patients?  Look at all the usage in industry outside the medical area where PPE is used to avoid risks.  

 

Why would COVID be the exception and not be mitigated in part by masks and PPE usage?  The only answer I can come up with would be that the virus size would be so small as to not be fully controlled by the mask.  Again, it comes down to percentages in terms of effectiveness.  The one thing I couldn't see would be that masks actually are negatively correlated with disease/COVID control.  Perhaps if someone reused their mask too much without cleaning/care this would be possible. Also maybe having a false sense of security by wearing a mask and letting your guard down in other areas.

 

 

 

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 11/22/2020 at 10:45 AM, navybankerteacher 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.

 

Thank you for making my case, as I knew you would.  You had to reach back more than 100 years.  Yet in the intervening 100 years, despite numerous pandemics of infectious respiratory diseases, of varying severity, masks were not recommended.  And at the start of THIS pandemic masks were not only not recommended they were actively discouraged by both US and world public health officials.  Because that is what the state of the science told them.  And then, while that science didn't change, the opinions of scientists changed - not the same thing.  And we started hearing about common sense, which is NEVER science. 

As for Fauci, he has been on every side of every element of this.  Fauci said don't wear masks, then said wear masks.  He said no to lockdowns before he said yes to lockdowns.  He said yes to cruising then said no to cruising.  He stood on a pitcher's mound with at least 60 (yes 60, not a mere 6) feet and wore a mask before settling right next to a friend in the stands, NOT socially distancing, although it would have been easy in an empty stadium, without his mask on.  One picture for show, and one that revealed his true belief.

And now we have a study published in the (right-wing - not) Nature magazine reporting that it appears that asymptomatic infectees are not contagious.  Which completely undercuts any logic in having people who have no symptoms, whether infected or not, wear masks to 'protect others'.

But hey, SCIENCE!!

Edited November 24, 2020 by Toofarfromthesea

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 11/22/2020 at 11:00 AM, navybankerteacher said:

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

As I suspected, not a clue about science.  What you are describing is how hypotheses are formed, not how scientific conclusions are drawn.

At the core of biology and other sciences lies a problem-solving approach called the scientific method. The scientific method has five basic steps, plus one feedback step:
1)Make an observation.
2) Ask a question.
3) Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation.
4) Make a prediction based on the hypothesis.
5) Test the prediction.
6) Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-biology-foundations/hs-biology-and-the-scientific-method/a/the-science-of-biology

 

You don't get to jump directly from "1) Make an observation" to a conclusion.

[broberts]

37 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Yet in the intervening 100 years, despite numerous pandemics of infectious respiratory diseases, of varying severity, masks were not recommended

 

Not every problem is a nail. Of these "numerous pandemics" how many were actually pandemics and how many of these feature aerosol transmission?

 

49 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

As for Fauci, he has been on every side of every element of this. 

 

A critical feature of science that appears to be missed by many is that as data is collected hypothesis evolve, are discarded, and new ones created. This is called learning. A surprising number of people seem unable to grasp the concept. (It's a wonder that our species has managed to survive and develop given how many such people seem to exist.) The fact that Dr Fauci has changed recommendations as more is learned about COVID-19 is a good thing. Imagine where we would be if he and other experts suggested that we all wait until all is known about the disease. 

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Thank you for making my case, as I knew you would.  You had to reach back more than 100 years.  Yet in the intervening 100 years, despite numerous pandemics of infectious respiratory diseases, of varying severity, masks were not recommended.  And at the start of THIS pandemic masks were not only not recommended they were actively discouraged by both US and world public health officials.  Because that is what the state of the science told them.  And then, while that science didn't change, the opinions of scientists changed - not the same thing.  And we started hearing about common sense, which is NEVER science. 

As for Fauci, he has been on every side of every element of this.  Fauci said don't wear masks, then said wear masks.  He said no to lockdowns before he said yes to lockdowns.  He said yes to cruising then said no to cruising.  He stood on a pitcher's mound with at least 60 (yes 60, not a mere 6) feet and wore a mask before settling right next to a friend in the stands, NOT socially distancing, although it would have been easy in an empty stadium, without his mask on.  One picture for show, and one that revealed his true belief.

And now we have a study published in the (right-wing - not) Nature magazine reporting that it appears that asymptomatic infectees are not contagious.  Which completely undercuts any logic in having people who have no symptoms, whether infected or not, wear masks to 'protect others'.

But hey, SCIENCE!!

Really?

 

 

[navybankerteacher]

4 hours ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

...

And now we have a study published in the (right-wing - not) Nature magazine ...

Are you defensive about right-wing leanings?  Does it not being right-wing make it more credible?

 

Otherwise, why bring that up?

[Toofarfromthesea]

19 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Are you defensive about right-wing leanings?  Does it not being right-wing make it more credible?

 

Otherwise, why bring that up?

 

Because any citation of a publication even suspected of being conservative gets instantly dismissed, here.

[Toofarfromthesea]

19 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Really?

 

 

 

Yup, really.  You can ignore sources and studies that cut against the narrative all you want, but the facts remain.

[navybankerteacher]

20 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Yup, really.  You can ignore sources and studies that cut against the narrative all you want, but the facts remain.

Indeed — and a primary fact is that those folks who resist complying with recommended (but unfortunately not-yet enforced) precautions such as mask wearing and social distancing are endangering  , by their ignorance and selfishness, the financial and physical well being of their neighbors.

 

You might want to think about the “narrative” which cuts against your preferences.

[navybankerteacher]

29 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Because any citation of a publication even suspected of being conservative gets instantly dismissed, here.

Bull!  

[broberts]

26 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Because any citation of a publication even suspected of being conservative gets instantly dismissed, here.

 

I think this is an overly sensitive remark. It's true that the many on the left view some right leaning publications as less than credible. I like to think this is because those publications have been known to use alternative facts. But i  know it is often because they espouse contrary views. 

 

I would point out that a similar situation exists with those on the right. While many consider publications like the NY Times as centrist, I've often seen it dismissed as a leftist publication.

[navybankerteacher]

12 minutes ago, broberts said:

 

I think this is an overly sensitive remark. It's true that the many on the left view some right leaning publications as less than credible. I like to think this is because those publications have been known to use alternative facts. But i  know it is often because they espouse contrary views. 

 

I would point out that a similar situation exists with those on the right. While many consider publications like the NY Times as centrist, I've often seen it dismissed as a leftist publication.

Agreed - The NY Times does tend to editorialize on the front page - regularly using unnecessary judgmental adjectives in discussion - generally giving a left slant to stories which true journalists would write more objectively.   It does, however, cover many topics, so with careful reading it is possible to be generally informed.

 

I think I first saw the trend back in the early 1970’s (I think) — when Geraldo Rivera talked about “advocacy journalism” -   which really is political pamphleteering.   Now, it is hard to read or hear a “news” person who does not inject a slant one way or the other - and for the mainstream organs that slant is regularly towards the “progressive” side - which is a soft term for “left”. 

 

The unfortunate thing for our society is the fact that more and more people seem to restrict their input to sources which serve primarily to justify their biases rather than to openly inform - and thus they  fail to fully inform themselves.

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 11/25/2020 at 9:21 AM, navybankerteacher said:

Bull!  

 

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?

[Toofarfromthesea]

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

[clo]

4 minutes ago, 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

Both far right and not reliable.

[Toofarfromthesea]

On 11/25/2020 at 11:02 AM, navybankerteacher said:

Agreed - The NY Times does tend to editorialize on the front page - regularly using unnecessary judgmental adjectives in discussion - generally giving a left slant to stories which true journalists would write more objectively.   It does, however, cover many topics, so with careful reading it is possible to be generally informed.

 

I think I first saw the trend back in the early 1970’s (I think) — when Geraldo Rivera talked about “advocacy journalism” -   which really is political pamphleteering.   Now, it is hard to read or hear a “news” person who does not inject a slant one way or the other - and for the mainstream organs that slant is regularly towards the “progressive” side - which is a soft term for “left”. 

 

The unfortunate thing for our society is the fact that more and more people seem to restrict their input to sources which serve primarily to justify their biases rather than to openly inform - and thus they  fail to fully inform themselves.

 

That "careful reading" of the NYT would have led the reader to believe for 3+ years that there was massive evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 election, whereas in the end the IG couldn't find ANY such evidence.

In an earlier age a careful reading of the NYT and their star foreign correspondent, Walter Duranty, would have informed the reader that Stalin's Russia was a socialist paradise.  

[Toofarfromthesea]

1 minute ago, clo said:

Both far right and not reliable.

 

Thank you for proving the point I just made to nbt.  Did you even read them?  

[clo]

7 minutes ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

Did you even read them?  

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

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, Toofarfromthesea said:

 

Thank you for proving the point I just made to nbt.  Did you even read them?  

I do not believe you have proved any point to anyone.  Except, of course, the fact that you are willing to believe any slanted partial study which supports your notion that COVID is a hoax. 

 

Of course it is possible to massage any statistics to support the concept that COVID has not caused any increase in deaths, and should not interfere with whatever people want to do. 

 

But then how do you explain the fact that hospitals are approaching full capacity -- people of many ages suffering similar symptoms?

 

The absurd fact is that people who resent their being denied the ability to cruise are precisely the ones most responsible for the delays in returning to cruising.  The tens of thousands of bikers who got together in South Dakota to launch the upper Midwest surge now approaching maturity - and the mobs who resisted urges to not travel over this holiday who will trigger the upcoming December surge - are the ones to thank for things.

[clo]

6 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

But then how do you explain the fact that hospitals are approaching full capacity -- people of many ages suffering similar symptoms?

 

One of our hospitals has taken two floors in their parking garage and turned them into a COVID wing. They started with 3 patients and a few days later they had 50+.

 

And, yes, re the post-Thanksgiving surge that, IMO, is sure to occur. Our three week partial shutdown will likely be extended and made more restrictive.

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, clo said:

One of our hospitals has taken two floors in their parking garage and turned them into a COVID wing. They started with 3 patients and a few days later they had 50+.

 

And, yes, re the post-Thanksgiving surge that, IMO, is sure to occur. Our three week partial shutdown will likely be extended and made more restrictive.

Do you mean to say that, unlike some posters here, you believe that COVID actually exists and needs to be taken seriously?

[ontheweb]

1 hour ago, clo said:

One of our hospitals has taken two floors in their parking garage and turned them into a COVID wing. They started with 3 patients and a few days later they had 50+.

 

And, yes, re the post-Thanksgiving surge that, IMO, is sure to occur. Our three week partial shutdown will likely be extended and made more restrictive.

Those who believe it is all a hoax will say that those are fake patients, and it's all fake news. It is only being done because the hospitals can collect more for treating the "so called" Covid patients.😢

[clo]

11 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Do you mean to say that, unlike some posters here, you believe that COVID actually exists and needs to be taken seriously?

I'm fighting this battle locally...for all the good it does 😞

 

[clo]

7 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

Those who believe it is all a hoax will say that those are fake patients, and it's all fake news. It is only being done because the hospitals can collect more for treating the "so called" Covid patients.😢

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.

[broberts]

4 hours ago, 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

...

 

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?