Is it time to restart cruising from US Ports and join the UK, Europe, Asia and the Caribbean?

[ontheweb]

2 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

Well if we are going there I believe there are other ways to fulfill our civic duties outside of voting and I do.  

No problem with that; I volunteer at a food pantry. But, I hope you realize you can do both. You seem to be a sensible person. Wouldn't it be better for your opinion to count as well as all those who are locked into their positions and unwilling to listen to anyone else?

[Mary229]

11 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

No problem with that; I volunteer at a food pantry. But, I hope you realize you can do both. You seem to be a sensible person. Wouldn't it be better for your opinion to count as well as all those who are locked into their positions and unwilling to listen to anyone else?

Like I said, it was a personal decision that I would rather not discuss in public

[ontheweb]

26 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

Like I said, it was a personal decision that I would rather not discuss in public

Ok, fair enough, I will respect your decision even thought I disagree with it.

[cruisemom42]

2 hours ago, Mary229 said:

 

Look the antivaxxers say they won't get one because of the risks involved in taking medications and that I have no problem with.  They NEVER say the vaccines don't work

 

It is only the fools like some at the CDC that say the vaccine doesn't work.  Yes, that is what is being said.  Vaccines prevent people from getting diseases including covid thereby also preventing contagion.  Is spread even a real term? The CDC saying the garbage that you posted actually makes a case against vaccination.  It is foolish.

 

As a matter of disclosure - myself and my household and most of my extended family, except children, are fully vaccinated.  I applaud those pharmaceutical scientists who studied rigorously and stayed up night after night finding a vaccine for this disease.  I personally think they  deserve every accolade and acknowledgment that society affords.  Dissing their hard work by saying this vaccine, unlike all other vaccines, does not really work is politically contrived hack science.

 

 

I am not sure from where you are drawing these conclusions but from past discussions I think you are a reasonable person, so would like the opportunity to understand how you came to your conclusions.

 

Of course you have no way of verifying this, but I work in R&D for a large (top 20) Pharma company -- not one who has a vaccine or vaccine candidate, but we do develop and produce vaccines.

 

I have a lot of respect for the CDC and I'm very disheartened to see them so pilloried in the press and public opinion for doing their (unpopular) job. Public health is a somewhat thankless task. The safeguards promulgated are taken for granted when they work well and do not inconvenience others, but when situations like this occur, they are in a difficult position. Their job is to get as many people as possible to follow the safeguards that will be most effective in combating disease.

 

It's unfortunate that early on this whole process became politicized to an extent that I have never seen before in this country. It reminds me, I'm sad to say, of those leaders of African countries who denied the existence of AIDS and the modes by which it was transmitted, as well as not allowing therapies to reduce viral loads that would have saved the lives of millions....

 

I do not see the CDC saying the vaccines don't work. What I see is CDC saying what they are able to say based on the data and the laws that govern drug and vaccine approval in the US. 

 

What I can say based on my knowledge is that much goes back to the clinical trials and the trial data from them. The goal of the entire process was to develop an effective vaccine to stop covid deaths and to do so as quickly as possible. Because of those goals, the trials were designed (to put it in simplest terms) to show this and nothing else. When the vaccines received approval, there was not the data available to determine whether or not they reduced infection levels to the point where person-to-person transmission was effectively blocked. Reduced, yes, but blocking transmission would have been a much more difficult endpoint in the immediate situation. This is a very good article published in Nature (a top journal) that explains why:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z

 

Now we are starting to see the data that will (hopefully) prove that the vaccines do prevent person-to-person transmission (not sure why you resist the term "spread"....).  But imagine if the government had come out initially and said that the vaccines prevented spread and then it was proved otherwise....???

 

 

[Mary229]

24 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

I am not sure from where you are drawing these conclusions but from past discussions I think you are a reasonable person, so would like the opportunity to understand how you came to your conclusions.

 

Of course you have no way of verifying this, but I work in R&D for a large (top 20) Pharma company -- not one who has a vaccine or vaccine candidate, but we do develop and produce vaccines.

 

I have a lot of respect for the CDC and I'm very disheartened to see them so pilloried in the press and public opinion for doing their (unpopular) job. Public health is a somewhat thankless task. The safeguards promulgated are taken for granted when they work well and do not inconvenience others, but when situations like this occur, they are in a difficult position. Their job is to get as many people as possible to follow the safeguards that will be most effective in combating disease.

 

It's unfortunate that early on this whole process became politicized to an extent that I have never seen before in this country. It reminds me, I'm sad to say, of those leaders of African countries who denied the existence of AIDS and the modes by which it was transmitted, as well as not allowing therapies to reduce viral loads that would have saved the lives of millions....

 

I do not see the CDC saying the vaccines don't work. What I see is CDC saying what they are able to say based on the data and the laws that govern drug and vaccine approval in the US. 

 

What I can say based on my knowledge is that much goes back to the clinical trials and the trial data from them. The goal of the entire process was to develop an effective vaccine to stop covid deaths and to do so as quickly as possible. Because of those goals, the trials were designed (to put it in simplest terms) to show this and nothing else. When the vaccines received approval, there was not the data available to determine whether or not they reduced infection levels to the point where person-to-person transmission was effectively blocked. Reduced, yes, but blocking transmission would have been a much more difficult endpoint in the immediate situation. This is a very good article published in Nature (a top journal) that explains why:

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00450-z

 

Now we are starting to see the data that will (hopefully) prove that the vaccines do prevent person-to-person transmission (not sure why you resist the term "spread"....).  But imagine if the government had come out initially and said that the vaccines prevented spread and then it was proved otherwise....???

 

 

Contagion is a better word than spread.  

 

Below is the official definition of a vaccine that CDC has on their website under vaccines, their standard page.   

 

Specifically I think the data concerning re-occurrence after vaccination in the short term is suspect.  I question the popular notion that a successfully vaccinated person can be contagious as the vaccine should, in theory, limit their virus load.

 

We are trying to get mass acceptance of vaccination.  With these muddled messages a person who is in a low risk group is left asking "why, why should I get a vaccine that is not going to solve the issue, yet have possible side affects".   I  know the CDC thinks they are promoting continued caution but muddling the message with these haphazard suppositions is not the way.    When the clear data is in then tell the public the facts.  Those that want up to date research can follow the studies themselves.  Many studies have published updates.   And they can simply say they urge caution until the government lifts the emergency health declaration.  As James Carville famously said Keep It Simple  

 

 

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Mary229

[ilikeanswers]

1 hour ago, Mary229 said:

Vaccine: A product that stimulates a person’s immune system to produce immunity to a specific disease, protecting the person from that disease. 

 

Covid-19 is the disease and so far most vaccines are proven effective against it. I don't think anyone apart from some anti vaxxers have been saying it is not effective against the disease. I know there are still questions over its effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission but the brief was to slow down the disease and so far results from Israel and UK seem to be showing they are fulfilling their brief. I'm a little confused about what all the confusion is about 😳😂. 

Edited April 4, 2021 by ilikeanswers

[Mary229]

7 minutes ago, ilikeanswers said:

 

Covid-19 is the disease and so far most vaccines are proven effective against it. I don't think anyone apart from some anti vaxxers have been saying it is not effective against the disease. I know there are still questions over its effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 virus transmission but the brief was to slow down the disease and so far results from Israel and UK seem to be showing they are fulfilling their brief. I'm a little confused about what all the confusion is about 😳😂. 

I agree with you 80%.  But the CDC continues to publish things their website aimed at the general public that, in my view, questions the efficacy of this vaccine by saying things that you might still be able to the disease, you might still be contagious.   Keep the message simple, tell people the vaccine works and if they have more questions to speak to their primary healthcare provider.  

 

They should only say what they know, not what they don't know.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Mary229

[ilikeanswers]

14 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

I agree with you 80%.  But the CDC continues to publish things their website aimed at the general public that, in my view, questions the efficacy of this vaccine by saying things that you might still be able to the disease, you might still be contagious.   Keep the message simple, tell people the vaccine works and if they have more questions to speak to their primary healthcare provider.  

 

They should only say what they know, not what they don't know.

 

I don't know if I would agree🤔. I think it is important the public understands the difference between disease and virus. In my experience a well informed public is better than a half informed public otherwise someone will take control of the hole in your information and use it against your message. If it had turned out that vaccines did not stop virus transmission and the public was not previously informed then anti vaxers would have a field day with the information and you would end up like the Philippines where everyone loses confidence in vaccines because they feel someone is hiding information. 

Edited April 4, 2021 by ilikeanswers

[cruisemom42]

6 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

But the CDC continues to publish things their website aimed at the general public that, in my view, questions the efficacy of this vaccine by saying things that you might still be able to the disease, you might still be contagious.   Keep the message simple, tell people the vaccine works and if they have more questions to speak to their primary healthcare provider.  

 

They should only say what they know, not what they don't know.

 

The problem with keeping the message simple is that you risk losing reputation by not being accurate or providing the full picture. Science, particularly medical science isn't simple and by simplifying it too much you risk inaccuracy.

 

Trust me, someone with an axe to grind (for example, a doctor or medical professional who understands the nuances and wants to exploit them for his or her own agenda) will find any inconsistencies and will then start telling the public that the CDC/govt isn't being honest, therefore you can't trust them.

 

The honest truth is that when the vaccines launched, it was absolutely correct to say those things because we didn't know at the time. There have been vaccines in the past that did have this exact profile (e.g., effective at reducing disease/symptoms in the vaccinated individual but not effective at stopping person-to-person transmission).

 

The virus doesn't just sit still once it gains access to your body and wait for the vaccine to act. Nor does the vaccine form some kind of magic "barrier" to virus entry. What happens is that once you are infected the virus starts to multiply quickly. Whether or not you are contagious depends on the STRENGTH and RAPIDITY of the immune response triggered by the vaccine. If it is fast enough, virus is killed rapidly and you do not have enough of it to be infectious to others. 

 

That's not a given with a vaccine. It has to be shown to be true.

 

The definition of a vaccine given by the CDC seems very accurate to me...

 

[Mary229]

@cruisemom2  I just came away from the FDA website.  Here is a link to their vaccine page addressed to the consumer.  It is clear and unambiguous.  It does not state what they don't know, it does urge caution and gives great reasons for vaccinating.  It is not muddled which I think provides ammunition to the anti vaccine argument.

 

 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/learn-more-about-covid-19-vaccines-fda

Edited April 4, 2021 by Mary229

[ldubs]

On 4/2/2021 at 10:56 AM, SelectSys said:

5 votes against so far and not a single reason why.  Is it science or something else that has you voting no?

 

So far we have universal consensus on the vaccine requirement for passengers and crew if and when cruising restarts.

 

Disclosure - I voted yes in terms of getting started.

 

 

I voted no on #1 because I think it is still too soon.    I think we are seeing a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel, but not there yet.     

[Globehoppers]

It is only the fools like some at the CDC

 

Calling the Center for Disease Control "fools" is totally uncalled for.  It is currently headed and staffed by very skilled and dedicated medical and science professionals.  Dr Rochelle Walensky is supremely well qualified to run the organization charter to keep us safe.  Saying she is a "fool" is a horrible comment.

[ontheweb]

38 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

@cruisemom2  I just came away from the FDA website.  Here is a link to their vaccine page addressed to the consumer.  It is clear and unambiguous.  It does not state what they don't know, it does urge caution and gives great reasons for vaccinating.  It is not muddled which I think provides ammunition to the anti vaccine argument.

 

 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/learn-more-about-covid-19-vaccines-fda

Thank you for posting that link. It is a very clear and concise description of the why the vaccine is important and considered safe. However, it does not at all address the issue of whether you can still spread the virus after being vaccinated. But, I guess that is your point, they do not say what they do not know yet.

[ontheweb]

8 minutes ago, Globehoppers said:

It is only the fools like some at the CDC

 

Calling the Center for Disease Control "fools" is totally uncalled for.  It is currently headed and staffed by very skilled and dedicated medical and science professionals.  Dr Rochelle Walensky is supremely well qualified to run the organization charter to keep us safe.  Saying she is a "fool" is a horrible comment.

Yes, that sort of name calling only reflects back on those doing it.

 

That is one of the major problems these days in public policy debate, in too many cases name calling has replaced rational discussion.

[cruisemom42]

42 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

@cruisemom2  I just came away from the FDA website.  Here is a link to their vaccine page addressed to the consumer.  It is clear and unambiguous.  It does not state what they don't know, it does urge caution and gives great reasons for vaccinating.  It is not muddled which I think provides ammunition to the anti vaccine argument.

 

 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/learn-more-about-covid-19-vaccines-fda

 

Yes, it is well written.

 

I guess it boils down to how much information you want. I prefer more. If I read only the FDA page, I would be left with a lot of unanswered questions. I prefer that the CDC tries pre-emptively to answer them; it just seems more honest to me. Some want understanding, others want reassurance.

 

[Mary229]

18 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

Yes, it is well written.

 

I guess it boils down to how much information you want. I prefer more. If I read only the FDA page, I would be left with a lot of unanswered questions. I prefer that the CDC tries pre-emptively to answer them; it just seems more honest to me. Some want understanding, others want reassurance.

 

I think for the general public it is just best to keep it simple.  For those like us it is better we seek out credible information deeper in the bowels of those websites or from other credible sources.  I so worry about those who find any tiny shred of misunderstanding and using it against the vaccination process. 

 

For most it should merely say the basics then "if you have further questions please consult your primary healthcare provider" 

 

Remember we are not just trying to vaccinate the well-educated.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Mary229

[mnocket]

5 hours ago, Mary229 said:

Like I said, it was a personal decision that I would rather not discuss in public

 

4 hours ago, ontheweb said:

Ok, fair enough, I will respect your decision even thought I disagree with it.

Please tell me you are NOT disagreeing with her choice to keep her reasons for a personal decision private. 

[cruisemom42]

57 minutes ago, Mary229 said:

Remember we are not just trying to vaccinate the well-educated.

 

True -- but we are going to face an ever-greater divide in this country if we don't take the opportunity to educate the less well-educated when the opportunity arises.

 

Otherwise how does one answer the question "why should I trust you enough to take a vaccine when I don't understand how it works?"  

 

[ldubs]

8 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

 

True -- but we are going to face an ever-greater divide in this country if we don't take the opportunity to educate the less well-educated when the opportunity arises.

 

Otherwise how does one answer the question "why should I trust you enough to take a vaccine when I don't understand how it works?"  

 

 

I think by uneducated you guys mean the great lot of us who are not scientists.  I'm not sure it is all about a technical understanding of the vaccine.  But clearly, the communication needs to be more effective than it is currently.   There is so much bad info being shared on any number of popular social media sites that competes with the message (why trust the CDC when that anonymous FB post has 20,000 likes  😄).   And "panels of contributors" are coming out of the woodwork to criticize everything.   In today's society facts are very "fluid" and often only accepted when they fit a person's needs.  That is what our public health is up against, IMO.  

[Mary229]

20 minutes ago, ldubs said:

 

I think by uneducated you guys mean the great lot of us who are not scientists.  I'm not sure it is all about a technical understanding of the vaccine.  But clearly, the communication needs to be more effective than it is currently.   There is so much bad info being shared on any number of popular social media sites that competes with the message (why trust the CDC when that anonymous FB post has 20,000 likes  😄).   And "panels of contributors" are coming out of the woodwork to criticize everything.   In today's society facts are very "fluid" and often only accepted when they fit a person's needs.  That is what our public health is up against, IMO.  

I think the CDC is trying to be everything to all people.   It needs to focus on a core message.  When I call them foolish it is not their science, it is their messaging and marketing.   Yes, marketing.  They may have been wiser to hire an agency to help them tighten up their message.  Trying to discuss nuances with the media, who are looking for a sound bite, can result in misinterpretation.

 

read the FDA link I gave above.   It is much more controlled.

 

there is a broad spectrum of educational levels in our country and there are many whose first language is not English.    We need to vaccinate them all including the semi-literate, the highly educated and the second language speakers

Edited April 4, 2021 by Mary229

[ontheweb]

2 hours ago, mnocket said:

 

Please tell me you are NOT disagreeing with her choice to keep her reasons for a personal decision private. 

No, I said I respect her decision to keep her reasons private. What I disagree with is not voting. 

 

I thought I was clear, but I guess my reply could be misunderstood. She gave me a like, so I guess she understood what I was saying.

 

[mnocket]

51 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

No, I said I respect her decision to keep her reasons private. What I disagree with is not voting. 

 

I thought I was clear, but I guess my reply could be misunderstood. She gave me a like, so I guess she understood what I was saying.

 

Good to hear.

 

Probably too philosophical to discuss here, but food for thought.....

 

It's easy to fall into the trap of taking a broadly stated belief - everyone should vote, everyone should get vaccinated, etc. - and apply it to a specific instance.  Generalities that start with "everyone or no one" rarely if ever hold up.  There's always exceptions.

 

Without knowing @Mary229reason for not voting, it's unfair to apply the "everyone should vote" belief to her specific situation.   I imagine there could be moral or other reasons one could choose not to vote.  If you knew her reasons, you might find in her case you agree with her decision.

 

Edited April 4, 2021 by mnocket

[Globehoppers]

3 hours ago, Mary229 said:

I think the CDC is trying to be everything to all people.   It needs to focus on a core message.  When I call them foolish it is not their science, it is their messaging and marketing.   Yes, marketing.  They may have been wiser to hire an agency to help them tighten up their message.  Trying to discuss nuances with the media, who are looking for a sound bite, can result in misinterpretation.

 

read the FDA link I gave above.   It is much more controlled.

 

there is a broad spectrum of educational levels in our country and there are many whose first language is not English.    We need to vaccinate them all including the semi-literate, the highly educated and the second language speakers

Your biases are coming out with the term "second language speakers."

 

FYI - not all US citizens speak "American English" as a first language.  And, IMHO, those who profess that "American English" must be the only language are not well traveled or educated.

 

Second, the CDC is not into "marketing."  It is not a social media site.  It is an official organ of the US government and as such provides Americans with the best information available on threats to health to Americans, both in and outside of the USA.

 

One of the challenges we have is that fully one-third of so called "educated" Americans believe the world is flat.  Thirty-three (33) percent.  Is that the result of our education system?  Result of "fundamentalism?"  Result of the absence of travel?  A large percentage of Americans have never traveled outside their state of birth and many never beyond their county.  Really sad.  In Europe, on the other hand, people routinely travel to other countries, speak multiple languages and welcome other cultures.  I know - I was raised in Europe, attended international schools and even lived in the former Yugoslavia in the 1980s attached to the US embassy.  And, have set foot on all seven continents.

 

The CDC - today at least - is a professional organization run by medical and scientific experts.  The Director herself has more qualifications that most people I've met.  The CDC is not obfuscating information while so-called social media sites are designed to do just that.

 

Do agree that all Americans needs to be vaccinated.  I am a proponent of required vaccinations, just as we did with smallpox which had been around infecting humans for over 3,000 years when a British doctor discovered that inoculations using cowpox from fistulas stopped the spread of the disease.  It took another 160 years to claim the disease was eradicated.

 

The US CDC is not in the marketing business.  It is in the fact business.  Whether you want to believe facts or not is your choice.  It is not out to stop you from cruising.  It does provide you with refined data of the threat to your safety, in this case to exposure to COVID-19.  I personally trust the CDC and its current director.  I will follow CDC guidance to keep my family and me safe.

Edited April 4, 2021 by Globehoppers

[Mary229]

23 minutes ago, Globehoppers said:

Your biases are coming out with the term "second language speakers."

 

FYI - not all US citizens speak "American English" as a first language.  And, IMHO, those who profess that "American English" must be the only language are not well traveled or educated.

 

Second, the CDC is not into "marketing."  It is not a social media site.  It is an official organ of the US government and as such provides Americans with the best information available on threats to health to Americans, both in and outside of the USA.

 

One of the challenges we have is that fully one-third of so called "educated" Americans believe the world is flat.  Thirty-three (33) percent.  Is that the result of our education system?  Result of "fundamentalism?"  Result of the absence of travel?  A large percentage of Americans have never traveled outside their state of birth and many never beyond their county.  Really sad.  In Europe, on the other hand, people routinely travel to other countries, speak multiple languages and welcome other cultures.  I know - I was raised in Europe, attended international schools and even lived in the former Yugoslavia in the 1980s attached to the US embassy.  And, have set foot on all seven continents.

 

The CDC - today at least - is a professional organization run by medical and scientific experts.  The Director herself has more qualifications that most people I've met.  The CDC is not obfuscating information while so-called social media sites are designed to do just that.

 

Do agree that all Americans needs to be vaccinated.  I am a proponent of required vaccinations, just as we did with smallpox which had been around infecting humans for over 3,000 years when a British doctor discovered that inoculations using cowpox from fistulas stopped the spread of the disease.  It took another 160 years to claim the disease was eradicated.

 

The US CDC is not in the marketing business.  It is in the fact business.  Whether you want to believe facts or not is your choice.  It is not out to stop you from cruising.  It does provide you with refined data of the threat to your safety, in this case to exposure to COVID-19.  I personally trust the CDC and its current director.  I will follow CDC guidance to keep my family and me safe.

You are way off base. Perhaps my grammar was faulty but I was trying to avoid listing all of the possible first languages.  You are making wild assumptions, very wild.    The CDC Is not the final or only source of credible information if you had even bothered to read the FDA link you could see a very good discussion for  the consumer.  The CDC is a quasi government organization receiving funding from both the government and industry.  Get your facts straight and do not assume you can read someone’s minds.  You are the one show your prejudice, if someone is not in lockstep with you they are somehow off 

Edited April 4, 2021 by Mary229

[ldubs]

1 hour ago, ontheweb said:

No, I said I respect her decision to keep her reasons private. What I disagree with is not voting. 

 

I thought I was clear, but I guess my reply could be misunderstood. She gave me a like, so I guess she understood what I was saying.

 

 

I understand.  I think everyone should vote. I agree with the right not to vote if that is what they want.  Especially if they wouldn't vote for my candidate!  😄