Is it possible to travel responsibly (during a pandemic)?

[tridacna]

Why limit yourself to SEA? There are other great dive destinations that are open. I went to Cocos in last December, Socorro in January, Maldives in March, back to Socorro in May. I'm now preparing for Malpelo in July, 5 weeks away.

Also since Indonesia is still closed, I reschedule my August trip to Sangalaki to next year and replace this year August trip for a trip to Isla Guadalupe to see Great White Shark, which is a rescheduled trip from last July. Then I will be back to Cocos in September, which is a rescheduled trip from last September and to Tiger Beach (to see Tiger Sharks & Great Hammerheads) in October, which is a rescheduled trip from last October.

Dan - you seem to love pelagics. Any places with good macro like Lembeh?

 

[Dan]

Dan - you seem to love pelagics. Any places with good macro like Lembeh?

In Bali, Tulamben and Secret Bay would be good ones, but Bali is still closed for Bule (gringo).

Pink Beach, Komodo is not bad. So is Ambon. However, they are still closed for Bule.

Algae Patch, Batanta, Raja Ampat is another good macro. Check out my video, below. Then again Raja Ampat is still closed for Bule.


Under The Blue Heron Bridge, Singer Island, Jupiter, Florida is not bad.

So is Little Bight, Utila. However, the noseeum (sand fleas) really love me to death. They have invisible Whalesharks too. So, Utila is no more for me.

 

[chillyinCanada]

2 passengers test positive for COVID-19 on 1st North American cruise since 2020

 

[Esprise Me]

2 passengers test positive for COVID-19 on 1st North American cruise since 2020

I know a very small number of people manage to catch the virus despite being vaccinated. And of course your bunkmate on a cruise is the person you're most exposed to. Still... seems like quite a coincidence. I wonder if they were both really vaccinated.

 

[Lorenzoid]

I know a very small number of people manage to catch the virus despite being vaccinated. And of course your bunkmate on a cruise is the person you're most exposed to. Still... seems like quite a coincidence. I wonder if they were both really vaccinated.

Is it a small number? I really have not read much about it, but my hazy recollection of what I read is that there is a greater than "small" likelihood for a vaccinated person who is exposed to the virus to be infected enough to test positive yet not develop symptoms or be likely to infect a third person. (I believe when a vaccinated person develops severe symptoms it's referred to as a "breakthrough case," as in statistical outlier.) My impression was that it would not be unlikely for a person who has been out and about without a mask, mingling with the unvaccinated and unmasked masses that still exist in some states, to be infected and therefore test positive. But my recollection of what I read could be totally wrong.

Anyone have some authoritative knowledge?

 

[Mod63]

Anyone have some authoritative knowledge?

Not authoritative, but the UK is currently estimating the breakthrough rate at 4% for Delta, which has become prevalent there.
There's also a small group of people that simply do not develop enough ant-bodies, this is more common in the elderly; there is also a preliminary study in Germany that shows that people that suffer from certain auto immune diseases like psiorasis do not respond to mRNA vaccines and would be better off with a vector based one.
Summary: Yes, there will always be a (hopefully very small) group of people that are fully vaccinated but do not have a proper immune response and can contract and spread CoVid-19.

 

[tridacna]

Not authoritative, but the UK is currently estimating the breakthrough rate at 4% for Delta, which has become prevalent there.

Not authoritive because clearly untrue. Breakthrough cases are extremely rare in the UK. More similar to the US. ~10k/>100m.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Not authoritative, but the UK is currently estimating the breakthrough rate at 4% for Delta, which has become prevalent there.

If I understand the term "breakthrough case" correctly, it means a vaccinated person developed significant symptoms. If that's correct, it doesn't mean 4% of vaccinated persons are capable of infecting others with Delta.

 

[tridacna]

If I understand the term "breakthrough case" correctly, it means a vaccinated person developed significant symptoms. If that's correct, it doesn't mean 4% of vaccinated persons are capable of infecting others with Delta.

Incorrect. (I do this for a living). Breakthrough refers to a positive Covid test after being fully vaccinated. Severity of disease is irrelevant. Think about it. This is the only objective way we can analyze the data.

 

[Lorenzoid]

Incorrect. (I do this for a living). Breakthrough refers to a positive Covid test after being fully vaccinated. Severity of disease is irrelevant. Think about it. This is the only objective way we can analyze the data.

I see. I thought what the vaccine was proven to do was to prevent illness (symptoms), and so the term "breakthrough case" means the vaccine failed to do that.

My confusion isn't helped by statements like this from the CDC:

• Vaccine breakthrough cases are expected. COVID-19 vaccines are effective and are a critical tool to bring the pandemic under control. However, no vaccines are 100% effective at preventing illness in vaccinated people. There will be a small percentage of fully vaccinated people who still get sick, are hospitalized, or die from COVID-19.

COVID-19 Breakthrough Case Investigations and Reporting | CDC

And then they follow that statement with a definition that sounds more like what you explained:

Defining a vaccine breakthrough infection
For the purpose of this surveillance, a vaccine breakthrough infection is defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen in a respiratory specimen collected from a person ≥14 days after they have completed all recommended doses of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-authorized COVID-19 vaccine.