CDC adjusts warnings

[RichYak]

3 hours ago, sippican said:

Having someone in my home undergoing chemotherapy, we are very well aware of how important it is to behave cautiously and thank goodness our family and friends are willing to go to whatever lengths necessary to protect them.  They know that, fever or not, they may have covid. Three of them test every single week so they won't expose him. 

If I were in this situation, I would rely heavily on high quality masks worn by everyone and not as much on testing. It's simply not feasible to test often enough to be truly confident.

[D C]

3 hours ago, Guppy99 said:

Lovely. People who think as you do have largely been responsible for continued spread of the disease. How every self-centered is that.

Testing is virtually pointless. 

Rapid tests are downright dismal at identifying asymptomatic positives. Falsely test negative and have false confidence that you're fine while you go about your daily business.  And if you're sick there's no reason to test. Stay home and don't spread whatever you may have.   

[WonderMan3]

5 hours ago, D C said:

Testing is virtually pointless. 

Rapid tests are downright dismal at identifying asymptomatic positives. Falsely test negative and have false confidence that you're fine while you go about your daily business.  And if you're sick there's no reason to test. Stay home and don't spread whatever you may have.   

No, testing does have a point to it. As has been already stated multiple times in this thread, you may be positive and spreading the virus without knowing it as you could be asymptomatic. Testing can help identify those who fall into that bucket who could unknowingly be passing the virus around. Yes, the rapid tests are very unreliable (in both scenarios - I tested positive on a rapid test in September and took a PCR test as a follow up to be sure and that turned out negative), so a PCR test should be taken when possible where testing is required for travel. 

[TeeRick]

6 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

No, testing does have a point to it. As has been already stated multiple times in this thread, you may be positive and spreading the virus without knowing it as you could be asymptomatic. Testing can help identify those who fall into that bucket who could unknowingly be passing the virus around. Yes, the rapid tests are very unreliable (in both scenarios - I tested positive on a rapid test in September and took a PCR test as a follow up to be sure and that turned out negative), so a PCR test should be taken when possible where testing is required for travel. 

Yes agree.  My point for months now.  If we have to have testing continue, switch back to the 3 day test window to allow the timing for PCR tests.  

[Cruising89143]

4 minutes ago, TeeRick said:

Yes agree.  My point for months now.  If we have to have testing continue, switch back to the 3 day test window to allow the timing for PCR tests.  

This. Agree 100%.

[Fly and Sail]

7 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

If you mean separating the people who had no problem complying with mask, vaccination and social distancing requirements in order to help mitigate the spread of a deadly virus vs. those who whined and/or screamed about guidelines or just didn’t bother complying in the name of “freedom”, then yes…wishful thinking indeed…

 

Pre-cruise testing and the other measures did make sense and were completely justified to get cruises sailing again but the world has moved on.

 

Yet there are those folks who whipped themselves into their own little covid frenzy world and never want to leave it again because it gives them something to talk about, feeling morally superior while being able to lecture others about masks and testing.

[DCPIV]

Thread locked in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . .

 

Maybe my timing is off, today.  Time to watch some basketball.

[D C]

8 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

No, testing does have a point to it. As has been already stated multiple times in this thread, you may be positive and spreading the virus without knowing it as you could be asymptomatic. Testing can help identify those who fall into that bucket who could unknowingly be passing the virus around. Yes, the rapid tests are very unreliable (in both scenarios - I tested positive on a rapid test in September and took a PCR test as a follow up to be sure and that turned out negative), so a PCR test should be taken when possible where testing is required for travel. 

You totally missed my point.  The random or periodic "I'll test just because, even though I have no symptoms" is quite pointless given the dismal performance of the rapid tests.  There's no point in taking a test that tells you falsely that you're negative more often than it gives positives. 

 

This also applies to cruise ships.  Rapid tests that let through positives are horrible.  Sure, they'll maybe catch half of the asymptomatic cases, and those who then develop symptoms can easily tell themselves "it must be just a cold or allergies since I just tested negative". Especially so when the symptoms are mild cold-like as they very often are among the vaccinated.   A pre-cruise PCR makes more sense, but the 2-day test requirement makes them nearly impossible. 

 

Ultimately, the responsibility of staying healthy falls on the individual.  Anyone who thinks all of the people around them in a bar, restaurant, store, bus, or wherever are acting in the best interest of anyone except themselves is sorely mistaken.  Most may well be conscientious enough, but plenty are not.  

[Shiba_Lover]

My issue with the testing is this:  The rapid test shows if you are CURRENTLY actively with symptoms (from what I understand)

 

Let's say there are some scenarios.

 

1.  I catch Covid on Wednesday night.  I go test at 8AM Thursday.  I will show negative.  I fly out on Friday for my cruise on Saturday.  I'm asymptomatic.  I get on ship.

2.  I do not have covid.  I go test on Thursday at 8AM.  I test negative.   I catch Covid on Thursday night.  I'm asymptomatic.  I fly out on Friday for my cruise on Saturday.  I get on Ship.

3.  I do not have Covid.  I go test on THursday.  I am negative.  I fly out on Friday.  board ship on Saturday.  Sunday I go to port 1, catch covid, get back on ship.  Am asymptomatic.  No more testing and I am on a 14 day cruise.  So now, I'm walking around with covid on the ship.

 

Here, I'm assuming asymptomatic.  Hopefully anyone feeling sick would indeed re-take a test or report they feel ill / isolate.

 

Either way - I am on the ship with Covid.  Since they are not doing on board testing - well - I'm on board with covid.  So they either need to scrap testing or do continuous testing.  I mean, yes, you may catch some asymptomatic people before they board - but with the current tests - you've got a small window of opportunity for the infection to show up.

 

I'm fully vaccinated, have had covid in spite of it, had symptoms and stayed home when i felt ill.  My first test was negative, but subsequent test was positive.  So you can't fully rely on test.   If I am in a situation where I may have been exposed - I would do a home test (example - we had dinner with neighbors, one of whom has to test regular as he is a college professor.  He called to say he had tested positive 2 days later.  We took tests even though we had no symptoms just to be safe and were negative.)

 

So I have no issue with testing when it makes sense - I just am not following the logic here as they need to be consistent not a one and done.  Either do it or stop it.

Edited March 17, 2022 by ehall

[RenoNanaOz]

22 hours ago, sippican said:

 

This is confusing. You can "be sick" with Covid and have no symptoms. In which case you'd be unwittingly spreading it around.

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by RenoNanaOz

[BeeMinor]

10 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

If you mean separating the people who had no problem complying with mask, vaccination and social distancing requirements in order to help mitigate the spread of a deadly virus vs. those who whined and/or screamed about guidelines or just didn’t bother complying in the name of “freedom”, then yes…wishful thinking indeed…

 

At this point we're really talking about the grey area between those two poles, since the people in the latter group who advocated for "vaccine freedom" or whatever can't sail anyway. So in that sense your wish has already come true!

 

As a vaxxed/boosted person whose absolute risk from contracting Covid is very low, I'd be happy to take a cruise with no testing or masking requirements, but that's me. Others may not have the same risk tolerance for whatever reason and should act accordingly. IMO it's like airlines saying that they'll do their best not to have peanuts present on flights, but if you have a severe peanut allergy, maybe flying isn't your best choice. I'm sure the cruise lines will pick up on these distinctions over time and figure out a way to make accommodations and/or monetize it. (Who's ready for the 2020 Pandemic Theme Cruise, where you have to flip a coin to see whether your cabin has toilet paper?)

[cangelmd]

5 hours ago, TeeRick said:

Yes agree.  My point for months now.  If we have to have testing continue, switch back to the 3 day test window to allow the timing for PCR tests.  

Ehh, I see both sides. In Feb, when we were coming down from Omicron, PCR would have produced a lot of false positives. If they aren’t willing to accept a documented recovery, a

or just a window of time since a positive test.

Despite the false negatives, a positive Ag test correlates at least as well as PCR to transmissibility, if not better. Isn’t the the real concern - transmitting virus?

[TeeRick]

49 minutes ago, cangelmd said:

Ehh, I see both sides. In Feb, when we were coming down from Omicron, PCR would have produced a lot of false positives. If they aren’t willing to accept a documented recovery, a

or just a window of time since a positive test.

Despite the false negatives, a positive Ag test correlates at least as well as PCR to transmissibility, if not better. Isn’t the the real concern - transmitting virus?

Well you are the testing expert here and I appreciate your comments always.  I won't risk a scientific discussion.  But I think if we continue to need to test before cruising, we need more than a 2 day window and we need to find asymptomatic people before they board and transmit virus.

[WonderMan3]

6 hours ago, D C said:

You totally missed my point.  The random or periodic "I'll test just because, even though I have no symptoms" is quite pointless given the dismal performance of the rapid tests.  There's no point in taking a test that tells you falsely that you're negative more often than it gives positives. 

 

This also applies to cruise ships.  Rapid tests that let through positives are horrible.  Sure, they'll maybe catch half of the asymptomatic cases, and those who then develop symptoms can easily tell themselves "it must be just a cold or allergies since I just tested negative". Especially so when the symptoms are mild cold-like as they very often are among the vaccinated.   A pre-cruise PCR makes more sense, but the 2-day test requirement makes them nearly impossible. 

 

Ultimately, the responsibility of staying healthy falls on the individual.  Anyone who thinks all of the people around them in a bar, restaurant, store, bus, or wherever are acting in the best interest of anyone except themselves is sorely mistaken.  Most may well be conscientious enough, but plenty are not.  

Um...that's exactly why I stated that the PCR test should be used. RAPID testing may indeed be pointless, but testing period is certainly not as you stated in the post I initially replied to...

[WonderMan3]

7 hours ago, Fly and Sail said:

 

Pre-cruise testing and the other measures did make sense and were completely justified to get cruises sailing again but the world has moved on.

 

Yet there are those folks who whipped themselves into their own little covid frenzy world and never want to leave it again because it gives them something to talk about, feeling morally superior while being able to lecture others about masks and testing.

Some in the world have moved on but alas Covid has not. 

 

Yet there are those folks who whipped themselves into their own little covid safety guidelines resistance world and never want to leave it again because it gives them something to talk about, feeling so rebellious while being able to lecture others about freedom and rights.

[D C]

47 minutes ago, WonderMan3 said:

Um...that's exactly why I stated that the PCR test should be used. RAPID testing may indeed be pointless, but testing period is certainly not as you stated in the post I initially replied to...

You're promoting frequent 'just because' PCR tests that cost money and take up valuable resources so you have a snapshot of a moment in time that gives you a false sense of confidence until your next expensive 'just because' test? Frankly, I find that absurd when we're dealing with something that is no more severe than the common cold for the vast majority of people who have been vaccinated against the disease. 

 

If you're not sick, at worst you're not very contagious. Go do whatever and assume others are protecting themselves. If you are sick, stay home, covid or not. 

[sippican]

41 minutes ago, D C said:

If you're not sick, at worst you're not very contagious. Go do whatever and assume others are protecting themselves. If you are sick, stay home, covid or not. 

 

Degree of sickness equates to how contagious you are?

Kind of like DUI driving and assuming others are protecting themselves from you by wearing seatbelts.

[Guppy99]

1 hour ago, D C said:

You're promoting frequent 'just because' PCR tests that cost money and take up valuable resources so you have a snapshot of a moment in time that gives you a false sense of confidence until your next expensive 'just because' test? Frankly, I find that absurd when we're dealing with something that is no more severe than the common cold for the vast majority of people who have been vaccinated against the disease. 

 

If you're not sick, at worst you're not very contagious. Go do whatever and assume others are protecting themselves. If you are sick, stay home, covid or not. 

You are delusional

[D C]

57 minutes ago, Guppy99 said:

You are delusional

Do you think that society in general is any different? People are NOT testing for the sake of testing. If they're not sick, they do normal-people things. And if they ARE sick with "a cold" they're probably still doing normal-people things. Anyone or everyone around you might be an asymptomatic positive. That's just how it is. 

[D C]

1 hour ago, sippican said:

 

Degree of sickness equates to how contagious you are?

Kind of like DUI driving and assuming others are protecting themselves from you by wearing seatbelts.

Actually, yes it does. 

[MamaFej]

3 hours ago, WonderMan3 said:

Some in the world have moved on but alas Covid has not. 

 

Yet there are those folks who whipped themselves into their own little covid safety guidelines resistance world and never want to leave it again because it gives them something to talk about, feeling so rebellious while being able to lecture others about freedom and rights.

"If you want to know the true nature of a person, ask if they'd be willing to tolerate a minor inconvenience to protect the life of a stranger."

 

We have definitely learned the true nature of a great number of people over the last couple of years. 

[Guppy99]

28 minutes ago, MamaFej said:

"If you want to know the true nature of a person, ask if they'd be willing to tolerate a minor inconvenience to protect the life of a stranger."

 

We have definitely learned the true nature of a great number of people over the last couple of years. 

yes...and it's very sad. I have learned over the past 10 years how many truly stupid (and I don't mean uneducated) people there are in this world, and now I have learned how many would not move an inch to benefit anyone other than themselves or perhaps their family (and most definitely not anonymously)

[Ken the cruiser]

49 minutes ago, D C said:

Do you think that society in general is any different? People are NOT testing for the sake of testing. If they're not sick, they do normal-people things. And if they ARE sick with "a cold" they're probably still doing normal-people things. Anyone or everyone around you might be an asymptomatic positive. That's just how it is. 

I agree. Hopefully, CDC will soon eliminate their cruise pre-testing “recommendation”.

 

For example, what I find interesting is when I look at the current C19 weekly average rates of the different US states listed on the JHU website:

 

https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/new-cases-50-states

 

Then click on a specific state, such as Nevada, then click on their State Profile option (e.g. Nevada is the only state with a sharp incline today), the percentage of C19 cases sick enough to be admitted into a hospital and potentially placed in critical care, I find the numbers are becoming increasingly lower as compared to when Delta or Omicron were at their peak. Regarding my state, Alabama, where only 50% are vaccinated, we’re doing quite well when compared to just a few months ago.

 

For example, here is Nevada’s hospitalization info.

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2022 by Ken the cruiser

[Virginia100]

The problem with tests, especially the PCR is they don’t accurately verity that the level of virus present is sufficient for easy transmission. Several medical experts actually think the rapid antigen test is the best as when you are positive they are fairly sure your level is high enough to transmit the virus. The PCR test can be very sensitive and result in a positive test but where there is not enough virus to be transmitted. Just because you are positive doesn’t mean you can transmit. It isn’t that simple though people like simple answers. The PCR test is not the end all.

[canderson]

4 hours ago, sippican said:

 

Degree of sickness equates to how contagious you are?

Yes.  Viral load matters.  You can test PCR positive while you're feeling just fine and your body is winning the battle, expelling very little virus as you have little to begin with.

Edited March 18, 2022 by canderson